Discrimination, Not 'Fit'

To the Editor:

Dennis M. Barden makes a case for why "fit" is an acceptable criterion in searches ("A Fitting End," Careers, June 29). But the word is often used to hide pernicious discriminatory reasons for failure to hire and grant tenure. The American Association of University Women agrees that the human aspect should not be removed from the candidate-evaluation process, but universities should require decision makers to provide solid, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions rather than allow them to rely on nebulous concepts such as fit.

During the past 25 years, the AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund has seen a steady increase in the use of terms like "fit" and "collegiality" to mask discrimination toward women and members of minority groups in academia. As overt discrimination has become unacceptable and legally actionable, those with negative opinions of women and members of minority groups have become more astute, turning to vague terminology to achieve their ends.

It is troubling when colleges assert that individuals who don't fit in will not be successful in academia. Many of the best professors and university leaders buck the norms and challenge the community's comfort. Rejection of candidates is part of academic life, but the reasons for rejection should be carefully examined, and the explanations provided should be concrete.

Lauren Kamnik
Director
Legal Advocacy Fund
American Association of University Women
Washington

http://chronicle.com
Section: The Chronicle Review
Volume 53, Issue 50, Page A43
August 17, 2007

 Back to AAUW News Room