What's the academese for "no fatties"? Why do I need to know? No reason, no reason.

[My response to the Inside Higher Ed article can be found here.]

It has come to my attention that I’m now too old and too experienced to be hired to do my job. Consider the “Required Qualifications” of this listing for a position at Colorado State University:

1. Ph.D. in English or American Studies or closely related area awarded between 2010 and time of appointment.
2. A promising record of scholarship/research in pre-1900 American literature and culture.
3. Ability to teach a range of subjects in American literature and culture between 1600 and 1900.

For years our “betters” have told those of up who earned our degrees between 2005 and 2010 that we needed to do whatever we could to survive—adjunct or lecture or accept positions at community colleges—and that when the market turned around we wouldn’t be punished for having done so. Seems we were lied to. If institutions require candidates who earned their doctorate after 2010, it indicates that they’ve embraced the idea that there’s a Lost Generation of scholars out there. A Generation so embittered by the paucity of prospects and the years spent toiling in academic recesses that its members can’t ever be reintegrated into a functioning department. We—I earned my doctorate in 2008—have been tainted by market forces beyond our control, but instead of bucking the inherently flawed system as they do in words and print, these aggressively benevolent "betters" are conceding that they’re powerless to do anything for this Generation in deeds.

“It’s not up to us,” they say.  (Only it is.)

“There’s nothing we can do about it,” they say. (Only they can.)

“If you’d landed a job in 2009 this wouldn’t have been a problem,” they say. (Only there weren’t any jobs in 2009 and they damn well know that.)

In short: the jobs promised to the Lost Generation are being outsourced to younger and prettier scholars for no particularly compelling reason, except that the younger and prettier scholars are younger and prettier. As Chad Black noted in the linked post, it’s not that there hasn’t always been a bias against those who don’t land a tenure track job after three years, it’s just depressing to see it codified in an advertisement—especially in light of what our "betters" have been telling about what will happen when the market turns around.

Comments

[Jonathan Dresner]

This is inexcusable. And bad policy, it seems to me: Lots of schools are thrilled to get faculty with substantial teaching experience, so that the usual first-time jitters aren't part of the adjustement process. And committee work? Bonus!

The qualifications listed -- "A promising record of scholarship/research ... Ability to teach a range of subjects" -- are unlikely to exist in a truly mint Ph.D. Some, maybe, but if you want evidence of scholarship and range, that takes time.

[jprs]

I think they're just looking for ways to cut down the number of applications from 300 to 45... But I wonder if this is really legal. Are they discriminating on the basis of age?

[SEK]

Technically, I don’t think it falls under age discrimination, since there’s no single age that a person finishes their doctorate. I was 31 when I finished mine, but I know people who were 28 and 38 when they finished theirs. It’s a loophole, and CSU seems happy to exploit it.

[Ergodicity]

I called up the office of equal opportunity at CSU and they basically said they want to cut down the number of applicants they see (at least that's generally the case) and if they miss qualified people, well, there are always more fish in the sea.

Personally I think the MLA should issue a statement (isn't Berúbé on the right side of this?)

[SEK]

I've contacted Michael and am waiting to hear what he says.

[CharleyCarp]

I don't know what the Colorado statute says, but you are way too young for federal age discrimination protection.

[Jonathan Dresner]

The comment I left at IHE:

While there is an implicit age issue here, apparently the real issue is cost: "an entry-level professor with an entry-level salary and expectations" has to be read as "cheap, weak-willed, willing to be overworked, and with a low probability of tenure."

Ironically, I still think they're shooting themselves in the foot on this. Not only are they excluding lots of strong candidates with solid experience who would be easy to get started, but those strong candidates have been working for peanuts without benefits for years, and would certainly not be that expensive.

"Overqualified" is another way of saying "might have ideas of their own."

There's no reason to give affirmative action to new Ph.D.s in tenure-track hiring. Postdocs, grants, short-term teaching assignments, I could justify. But not tenure-track. That's just wrong.

This definitely was a Kinsley Gaffe: saying these things openly just obliterates our veneer of meritocracy....