-
Recruitment and Diversity: current status and best
practicesMarlene ZukAssociate Vice ProvostFaculty Equity &
DiversityUniversity of California, Riverside
-
Diversity and the University of CaliforniaNot about hiring
quotas, or showing preference to particular groupsAllows the best
use of our talentRemoving barriers and providing equal access and
equal opportunitySometimes those barriers are subtle or
subconscious
-
The importance of diversity: California Universities
ConsortiumFor each of our universities, diversity is integral to
the achievement of excellence and enhances each institutions
ability both to accomplish its academic mission and to serve all
the people of California and the nation. May 19, 2006Not an add-on,
but part of what we do
-
Who is our focus?Some variation by area, but generally we are
concerned with:Gender equityUnder-represented
minorities:African-AmericanChicano/LatinoAmerican Indian/Alaskan
Native
-
What are our goals?Faculty should represent the availability of
qualified candidates from each groupSo, for example, all
departments are not expected to have a 50:50 sex ratio, or the same
% of LatinosWe use federally-mandated data, obtained every year
from the National Opinion Research CouncilBased on number of Ph.D.s
in each fieldUCR statistics available from the Office of Faculty
and Staff Affirmative Action (or from Marlene Zuk)
-
University of California Presidents Task Force on Faculty
Diversity Availability Pool for Ladder Rank Faculty
-
University of California Presidents Task Force on Faculty
DiversityFaculty Headcount 1989-2005
-
University of California Presidents Task Force on Faculty
Diversity Faculty Hiring vs. Availability 2000-01 to 2003-04UC
hires women faculty below availability in all fieldsAssistant
ProfessorsAssoc & Full Professors
-
University of California Presidents Task Force on Faculty
Diversity Faculty Hiring vs. Availability 2000-01 to 2003-04
UC hires URM below availability in some fields and above in
others
-
GSOE
5059.79Women42.8670.43
8.338.32Black011.34
03.72Hispanic06.12
00.7Amer Ind00.8
Tenured Incumbents
Tenured Availability
Non-tenured
Non-tenured Incumbents
Non-tenured Availability
Percentage
School of EducationFaculty 2005
CNAS
16.7532.56Women29.1737.9
01.98Black03.16
2.542.77Hispanic6.253.93
00.32Amer Ind00.32
Tenured Incumbents
Tenured Availability
Non-tenured
Non-tenured Incumbents
Non-tenured Availability
Percentage
Natural and Agricultural SciencesFaculty 2005
CHASS
36.3146.05Women51.3551.42
2.794.06Black9.465.6
7.264.34Hispanic6.766.67
1.120.4Amer Ind2.70.61
Tenured Incumbents
Tenured Availability
Non-tenured
Non-tenured Incumbents
Non-tenured Availability
Percentage
Humanities, Arts and Social SciencesFaculty 2005
AGSM
14.2933.62Women30.7739.84
7.143.84Black06.6
02.76Hispanic7.694.48
00.43Amer Ind00.49
Tenured Incumbents
Tenured Availability
Non-tenured
Non-tenured Incumbents
Non-tenured Availability
Percentage
Anderson School of ManagementFaculty 2005
BCOE
016.7Women21.7421.16
01.58Black03.48
02.3Hispanic8.73.66
00.3Amer Ind00.33
Tenured Incumbents
Tenured Availability
Non-tenured
Non-tenured Incumbents
Non-tenured Availability
Percentage
Bourns College of EngineeringFaculty 2005
2005Gender
52.647.4
92.17.9
59.640.4
76.923.1
82.117.9
Male
Female
College
Percentage
UCR Faculty Gender2005
Chart1
16.7532.56Women29.1737.9
01.98Black03.16
2.542.77Hispanic6.253.93
00.32Amer Ind00.32
Tenured Incumbents
Tenured Availability
Non-tenured
Non-tenured Incumbents
Non-tenured Availability
Percentage
CNAS 2006
Raw Data
%GSOEBCOECHASSAGSMCNASTOTAL
Male52.692.159.676.982.172.3
Female47.47.940.423.117.927.7
GSOEBCOECHASSAGSMCNAS
White94.75472.246.278
Black5.304.53.80
Hispanic03.26.93.83.2
Asian036.511.446.218.3
Amer Ind001.600
Unknown06.33.300.5
GSOE
WomenBlackHispanicAmer Ind
Tenured
Incumbents508.3300
Availability59.798.323.720.7
Non-tenured
Incumbents42.86000
Availability70.4311.346.120.8
BCOE
WomenBlackHispanicAmer Ind
Tenured
Incumbents0000
Availability16.71.582.30.3
Non-tenured
Incumbents21.7408.70
Availability21.163.483.660.33
AGSM
WomenBlackHispanicAmer Ind
Tenured
Incumbents14.297.1400
Availability33.623.842.760.43
Non-tenured
Incumbents30.7707.690
Availability39.846.64.480.49
CHASS
WomenBlackHispanicAmer Ind
Tenured
Incumbents36.312.797.261.12
Availability46.054.064.340.4
Non-tenured
Incumbents51.359.466.762.7
Availability51.425.66.670.61
CNAS
WomenBlackHispanicAmer Ind
Tenured
Incumbents16.7502.540
Availability32.561.982.770.32
Non-tenured
Incumbents29.1706.250
Availability37.93.163.930.32
NumberGSOEBCOECHASSAGSMCNAS
Male105814620179
Female9599639
Ethnicity
Ethnicity
94.75.30000
5403.236.506.3
72.24.56.911.41.63.3
46.23.83.846.200
7803.218.300.5
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Amer Ind
Unknown
College
Percentage
UCR Faculty Ethnicity 2005
MBD0685757E.doc
White female
White male
URM female
URM
male
White female
White male
URM female
URM male
AGSM
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
BCOE
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
GSOE
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
CHASS
9
5
1
3
2
1
1
2
CNAS
3
4
0
0
3
11
0
1
TOTAL
13
14
1
4
6
14
1
4
-
What can we do?Ensure that recruitment and hiring are fair and
as unbiased as possibleTargeted recruitment is legal and desirable,
even with Prop. 209; hiring preferences are not
-
Some myths about hiring and faculty diversityFaculty should
reflect the composition of California, or Riverside, or UCR
undergradsHiring should reflect availability pool for each fieldWe
are striving for equity, not favoritism
-
Some myths about hiring and faculty diversity (contd)We only use
quality as a criterion for hiring. Adding diversity will therefore
compromise quality. Quality can be hard to define, and can be
applied differently to different groupsUnconscious biases influence
our evaluationsExample 1: 147 heads of departments sent fictitious
resumes, asked to suggest rank if candidate were to be appointed in
their deptSame resume given lower rank if had female nameSimilar
results for race, in other situations
-
Quality is subjective: the myth of pure merit (contd)Unconscious
biases influence our evaluationsExample 2: Evaluation of > 300
letters of recommendation for successful candidates in medical
school positions (Trix & Psenka 2003)letters for women were
shorterletters for men focused on research ability, letters for
women on how hard they worked
-
Letters of recommendation: differences by genderMost common
semantic categories of objects of possessive phrases for women:Her
trainingHer teachingHer applicationMost common semantic categories
of objects of possessive phrases for men:His researchHis skills and
abilitiesHis careerBy this measure, women are portrayed more as
students and teachers, while men are portrayed more as researchers
and professionals.
-
Myths about hiring and faculty diversity (contd)Relatively few
qualified women or minority candidates are available, and these are
highly sought-after, so we are unlikely to recruit them.Although
availabilities differ, in most cases we are not hiring faculty
anywhere close to the proportion that are availableData suggest
that minorities are not sought-afterFord Foundation minority
postdocs: 89% had just one offer, 54% never approached by any
institution for recruitment
-
Some myths about hiring and faculty diversity (contd)We are
doing everything we can, so the situation is already the best it
can be.The problem is all due to older white men, so once they
die/retire, things will automatically improve.Biases occur in
everyone, regardless of gender/ethnicityHiring for many groups has
been flat despite increased availabilityMany institutions have made
significant changesUC Irvine: 14 of 28 hires in biological sciences
over 3 years were women; women faculty went from 16.5% to 25.5%
-
Quality and DiversityHiring a more diverse faculty will improve
quality, not compromise it.Affirmative action brought objectivity
to the hiring process, by requiring formal searches with
advertisement and interviewsMore heterogeneous groups have greater
creativity, bring wider range of viewpoints to academic endeavor.We
cannot afford to ignore talent.
-
Search committees and job advertisementFollow UC procedures (see
Recruitment Toolkit)Consider diversity from the beginningCast a
wide net, with a broad descriptionMore women and under-represented
groups in the pool means greater likelihood of hiring
-
Generating the applicant poolAdvertise in your usual outlets (we
can help)Be proactive have search committee members and others call
up potential applicants and invite them to applyBe sure to include
assistant professors Evidence suggests women stop looking once they
have a job, men dontSuch cherry-picking can greatly increase the
number of qualified applicants without flooding the pool
-
Review of applicationsTake enough timeAt least 10 - 15 minutes
per fileMartell 1991: Distracted evaluators under time constraints
rated women lower than men for same written job performance; when
less pressured, less biasedMake evaluation criteria explicitAvoid
the Supreme Court pornography approachConsider qualification grid
to help articulate goalsNot a narrow or rigid description of
qualities (must have published 7 papers in 2 years), but a way to
guard against falling back on biases
-
InterviewsMake sure everyone search committee, faculty, graduate
students knows about appropriate and inappropriate questionsAsk all
candidates similar questionsUse Recruitment ToolkitMake information
about family-friendly policies available to all candidates
-
Sources of helpSpeakers in STEM fieldsUC Presidents
PostdocsHiring incentivesAdditional candidate fundingDiversity IC
supplementsSpousal/partner accommodationNotify me as soon as
possibleCan help with on- and off-campus referrals, search
waivers
-
ResourcesMarlene [email protected] of Faculty and
Staff Affirmative
Actionaffirmativeaction.ucr.edu/[email protected]
UCOP Faculty Diversity
site:www.universityofcalifornia.edu/facultydiversity/