One example might be the growth of "diversity" programs adopted by several PhD-granting institutions—I put diversity in quotes because they are referring to career diversity rather than how the word is generally defined. These programs attempt to re-imagine the PhD, making them less about preparing students for academia and more about funneling them towards jobs outside of the academy.
There are many ironies to this. The first is that it seems unwise to make graduate school about pushing people into the "real world," because most of the people running such programs (from administrators to faculty) do not have adequate experience outside of the academy. If anything, perhaps PhD programs should place less emphasis on "career diversity" and more emphasis on solving its lack of racial diversity, which limits its ability to effectively cater to students of color.
Some would say that career diversity initiatives are not opposed to the goals of a PhD program—indeed, and might in fact make participants a better candidate on the academic job market. In my opinion, however, this would only be true at universities where one was already nearly guaranteed a job in academia after graduating. Career diversity has been implemented in a manner that sharply defines the two potential career paths—you're either on your way to the Ivory Tower, or you're on track for something else. And, more often than not, whether someone is destined for academia is determined based on how dedicated they are to the traditional path—not on whether they are "diversifying" their skill-set.
Career Diversity can thus feel more like a tool PhD programs can use to weed out those who don't fit the mold, especially since most graduate students are resourceful enough to explore career options existing outside of academia on their own. If "career diversity" is to become a permanent part of PhD programs, there needs to be an understanding on the part of everyone involved—from department chairs to incoming first years—that academia isn't necessarily the goal. In other words, if PhD programs want to envision themselves as preparing graduate students for alternate career paths, then they need to be more accepting of graduate students who don't fit the mold of the traditional R1 tenure track scholar.
The second—and more troubling—irony lies within the naming scheme, which commodifies the term "diversity." This has been a growing trend of late, with "diversity" statements becoming more common on a variety of applications as universities seek to become more inclusive. These diversity statements are problematic for three reasons: 1) they force people of color to perform their otherness for a chance at receiving more equitable treatment, 2) they typically sidestep the issue of race and gender in general by asking applicants how they "understand" issues of diversity, rather than how they themselves experience them, and 3) they allow institutions to claim that they are becoming more progressive when, in reality, no systemic changes are occurring.
Thus, the term "career diversity" is upsetting because it seeks to commodify the experiences of people of color—to commodify the term "diversity"—in order to sell a program that, in effect, tries to transition people of color to jobs outside of academia.
Career diversity programs tend to target graduate programs ranked outside of the top-10 (the top-10 usually consisting of Ivy League or Ivy League equivalent institutions—of the twenty institutions given an AHA Career Diversity Implementation Grant in 2018, 85% are ranked outside of the top-10, with the exceptions being UC Berkeley, the University of Chicago, and the University of Michigan). And, these are programs that often contain a higher percentage of people of color.
Ironically, if graduate students of color choose to take advantage of these "career diversity" opportunities, they will ensure that academia becomes far less diverse.
Articles on this topic typically side-step the issue of diversity in academia by pointing to how white women now make up a far larger proportion of tenured professors than they did previously, or by using statements like "underrepresented minorities have achieved three times the rate of growth" in the academy as compared to white faculty members in recent years.
Including white women in the Ivory Tower is a start, not the conclusion. And to say that people of color have achieved "three times the rate of growth" is not saying much, especially if our rate of growth was tiny to begin with. And at any rate, the data demonstrates that regardless of any increase in "rate of growth," the vast majority of faculty members continue to be white and male, with white women edging them out only in the field of education.
A problem that is as self-perpetuating as this one cannot be solved by a single article. But perhaps we can take a decent first step towards progress by ensuring that we do not discourage graduate students of color from pursuing a job in academia so early in their careers.
There are many ironies to this. The first is that it seems unwise to make graduate school about pushing people into the "real world," because most of the people running such programs (from administrators to faculty) do not have adequate experience outside of the academy. If anything, perhaps PhD programs should place less emphasis on "career diversity" and more emphasis on solving its lack of racial diversity, which limits its ability to effectively cater to students of color.
Some would say that career diversity initiatives are not opposed to the goals of a PhD program—indeed, and might in fact make participants a better candidate on the academic job market. In my opinion, however, this would only be true at universities where one was already nearly guaranteed a job in academia after graduating. Career diversity has been implemented in a manner that sharply defines the two potential career paths—you're either on your way to the Ivory Tower, or you're on track for something else. And, more often than not, whether someone is destined for academia is determined based on how dedicated they are to the traditional path—not on whether they are "diversifying" their skill-set.
Career Diversity can thus feel more like a tool PhD programs can use to weed out those who don't fit the mold, especially since most graduate students are resourceful enough to explore career options existing outside of academia on their own. If "career diversity" is to become a permanent part of PhD programs, there needs to be an understanding on the part of everyone involved—from department chairs to incoming first years—that academia isn't necessarily the goal. In other words, if PhD programs want to envision themselves as preparing graduate students for alternate career paths, then they need to be more accepting of graduate students who don't fit the mold of the traditional R1 tenure track scholar.
The second—and more troubling—irony lies within the naming scheme, which commodifies the term "diversity." This has been a growing trend of late, with "diversity" statements becoming more common on a variety of applications as universities seek to become more inclusive. These diversity statements are problematic for three reasons: 1) they force people of color to perform their otherness for a chance at receiving more equitable treatment, 2) they typically sidestep the issue of race and gender in general by asking applicants how they "understand" issues of diversity, rather than how they themselves experience them, and 3) they allow institutions to claim that they are becoming more progressive when, in reality, no systemic changes are occurring.
Thus, the term "career diversity" is upsetting because it seeks to commodify the experiences of people of color—to commodify the term "diversity"—in order to sell a program that, in effect, tries to transition people of color to jobs outside of academia.
Career diversity programs tend to target graduate programs ranked outside of the top-10 (the top-10 usually consisting of Ivy League or Ivy League equivalent institutions—of the twenty institutions given an AHA Career Diversity Implementation Grant in 2018, 85% are ranked outside of the top-10, with the exceptions being UC Berkeley, the University of Chicago, and the University of Michigan). And, these are programs that often contain a higher percentage of people of color.
Ironically, if graduate students of color choose to take advantage of these "career diversity" opportunities, they will ensure that academia becomes far less diverse.
Articles on this topic typically side-step the issue of diversity in academia by pointing to how white women now make up a far larger proportion of tenured professors than they did previously, or by using statements like "underrepresented minorities have achieved three times the rate of growth" in the academy as compared to white faculty members in recent years.
Including white women in the Ivory Tower is a start, not the conclusion. And to say that people of color have achieved "three times the rate of growth" is not saying much, especially if our rate of growth was tiny to begin with. And at any rate, the data demonstrates that regardless of any increase in "rate of growth," the vast majority of faculty members continue to be white and male, with white women edging them out only in the field of education.
A problem that is as self-perpetuating as this one cannot be solved by a single article. But perhaps we can take a decent first step towards progress by ensuring that we do not discourage graduate students of color from pursuing a job in academia so early in their careers.
Comments
Post a Comment
Be kind and think critically.