jobs and hiring

Tue, 7 Jun 1994 11:15:31 EST

Jonathan recently noted two highly relevant points . . . first, why should
meaningful work be restricted, and second, why doesn't affirmative action
take life experience into consideration?

I agree . . . and believe that that is the best possible answer that I have
heard to how academic hiring practices should be modified.

If one takes a conflict theory approach to analysis of the problem, the first
question that must be asked is "WHO BENEFITS FROM ACADEMIC DOWNSIZING AND
DISCRIMINATION IN ANY FORM?" When that is answered, some idea of how power
is being used and to what end becomes clear.

Thus, I will return to the origninal train of thought in earlier posts to
the list . . . who benefits from implementing policies that discriminate
against anyone in departmental hiring practices? Do the students at the
institution benefit by getting potentially less qualified instructors? Do
the applicants benefit? Do the established facutly benefit? Do special
interest groups benefit: e.g., minority categories? Do taxpayers benefit?

Does the discipline benefit? Does scholarship benefit? Does `knowledge
per se' benefit?

The rhetorical question I am asking across the board is simple . . . what
possible and conceivable advantage for the collective good of academics
and society as a whole can be gained from limiting the number of available
positions in any academic discipline, from reducing the number of available
jobs in any academic discipline, from prohibiting people from pursuing their
chosen professions if they have established their qualifications and abilities,
from generating rancour among entire categories of people over diminishing
resources, and from restricting education opportunities for anyone?

John O'Brien