Whose Burden is it? Cleaning up Bias in Academia

When the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill put New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones essentially through the wringer in what should have been a slam-dunk tenure decision, they broke a promise to her as an incoming holder of an endowed chair – the same one fulfilled for all prior recipients. They violated a host of academic promotion principles and lowered themselves in the public eye. And for what?

Hannah-Jones had accepted a position as the Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism at the university’s Hussman School of Journalism and was expected to start July 1. She had indicated that she would not accept the offer without tenure.

Her appointment drew a swift backlash from conservatives who took issue with her involvement in the 1619 Project, a multimedia series from The Times Magazine that re-examined the legacy of slavery in the United States. Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer Prize in 2020 for her introductory essay. She has a stellar record of journalistic awards.

The whole process looks to be tainted by prejudice and possible influence of donor money. I don’t write about this as a casual observer or even a professor who hasn’t seen academic bias in tenure decisions before – or lived it. When all the facts are in, outstanding letters of recommendation have been received, student evaluations are excellent, and departmental colleagues have given their staunch support, someone, somewhere in the system, can still block tenure. And for what? Apparently, if they have the power, for whatever reason they deem appropriate unless sturdy safeguards are applied.

I wrote and published my debut novel, Shadow Campus, because this situation of bias exists in academia. Yes, the book is fiction. But weaved throughout the plot are the reasons why a young woman’s tenure decision was never about her accomplishments. In a department of nearly all men, with no connections to powerful people for whom she was a favorite, protagonist Meg Doherty was found hanging in her office the night before her tenure decision. Was it an accident? Some bad guy run amuck? If only.

Shadow Campus and my second novel, Damned If She Does, reveal the seedy side of academic politics. As I wrote in The Secret Handshake, no group or organization is free of politics. Not even church choirs. Academia is no exception either. But much of what goes on to the detriment of people like Hannah-Jones is protected by secrecy rules supposedly crafted for the benefit of promotion applicants. A wall goes up and almost anything can happen behind it.

So, whose burden is it then to change such pathological politics? Should women like Hannah-Jones take it on? In a way, she did. She may have turned her back on UNC for Howard University, but she left scorched earth in her wake. Her reason was not to punish one system and reward another, although that happened. She wasn’t seeking revenge. She explained “it’s not my job to heal the University of North Carolina. That’s the job of the people in power who created this situation in the first place.”

I’ve been tenured by two universities, promoted to full professor and later professor emerita. The journey was not free of bias against women, in my case, and battling. As an academic for my entire career, I did see it as partially my burden to right the ship if at all possible. I decided to stand firm. It helped immensely to have received superb letters, excellent teaching evaluations, to have published extensively and brought in significant grant money for research among other accolades. 

Nevertheless, deciding to fight a huge system is no small decision. I have the invisible scars to prove it. The toll on myself and my family was extensive. Did I ultimately win? Yes. But the university won more because hopefully they’ll think twice before allowing such bias and blatant disregard of their own promotion process rules.

Was it Hannah-Jones’ job to fight such a battle? I don’t think so. Unlike me, she had not spent her entire career in academia. In fact, she was a newcomer. But contrary to some observations, she actually did fight. She did so by walking away from UNC, but also by sharing with the press what can happen to women and minorities even in the hallowed halls of learning. 

Hannah-Jones did academia a favor. She didn’t fold. I recall one dean saying to another when I was battling for my future, “You guys picked the wrong victim.” That’s what UNC did – one of their own graduates no less – and they rightfully paid a high price.

If they don’t have their brooms out cleaning every corner of their tenure process, then UNC didn’t learn a thing. Perhaps, instead, they’ll realize that memories of those burned are not as short as they may think and that every now and then they just might choose the wrong victim.

Posted in Confrontation, Gender Issues, Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Courage vs. Subservience – Liz Cheney and Elise Stefanik

Photo by Michael Schofield on UnsplashLiz

Representative Liz Cheney made a choice yesterday and she did it alone. There was no pandering to power, no one standing by her side at the podium. She took what I wrote about in my Harvard Business Review article “Courage as a Skill” – a spear-in-the-sand move.

Spear-in-the-sand situations require that you weigh your belief in a cause against the risks involved. Such situations are rare: They occur when negotiation is difficult or impossible, open minds are hard to find, and doing nothing is simply not an option.

John McCain defined courage as a brief, singular occurrence: “that rare moment of unity between conscience, fear, and action, when something deep within us strikes the flint of love, of honor, of duty, to make the spark that fires our resolve.” Courage is rarely, however, a moment in time when without forethought a lone hero stands up for virtue. More often it is a calculation – a courage calculation.

Among six components of the courage calculation is one of addressing what matters most. If you do not act, for example, will you be able to look at yourself in the mirror? Does the situation call for immediate, high-profile action or something more nuanced? Courage is not about squandering political capital on low priority issues. It is often about reaching deep within ourselves under career-threatening circumstances, discovering what matters, revisiting what we’ve pledged to do for the betterment of something beyond self and refusing to back down.

Whether Republican, Democrat or Independent, if you don’t see what Liz Cheney said and did yesterday as courage, you don’t understand the concept. She put democracy and the U.S. Constitution before fealty to one man, Donald Trump. She stood firm as the mantle of leadership was about to be taken from her by the likes of Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise to be given to a person who kissed the ring and was launched into stardom.

Representative Elise Stefanik publicly hitched her wagon to the cult of personality that is the current Republican Party. And while she will be suddenly risen high in one way, she has willingly been brought low in another. Here is a young woman with promise in several ways, who, it appears, took a short cut to the top. Will Trump let her stay? Only if she does not disappoint, does not grow. There’s a reason why so many cowards fear Donald Trump. He is vengeful. And no one is safe for long.

What is democracy without courage? We are learning. It is damaged and in peril. As such, those who have forgotten the travesties of the past brought on by obsequiousness to one man, or who simply don’t care, see their chance.

Liz Cheney stood up to them. Were she and I to sit down for lunch one day, we would have differences. But I know courage when I see it. I know, too, what it feels like to have people take what you’ve worked so hard to achieve merely to advance their own agenda. Standing up to such people is never easy. It is, however, what those among us must do to protect what is precious, to create a bridge over troubled times when virtue is drowning. She did these things yesterday, nearly alone, and ultimately she did them for us.

Posted in Confrontation, Leadership, Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

The Secret Excuse for Still Holding Women and Minorities Back: “There Just Aren’t Many Like You Out There”

Photo: unsplash/Paolo Chiabrando
 

Some years ago, a male senior colleague shared with me why more women weren’t being promoted in our division: “There just aren’t many like you out there,” he said. I replied, “That’s simply not true.” He persisted: “It is. We’ve looked.”

In The Secret Handshake, I wrote about unspoken yet widely shared views like this that hold back women and minorities.

In 2014, I wrote at Huffpo about Apple’s announced intention to add more women to their board. They cautioned that this endeavor would take considerable time. The clear implication was that such women were like needles in a haystack. Here’s an excerpt from my response:

Thanks to Apple shareholders, the company’s board nominating committee will now be “actively seeking out highly qualified women.” Which raises the question: What has the committee been doing for more than three decades? Apparently the same thing they’ve been doing about minorities, since the woman currently on the board is also its only member of a minority group.

Worse still, Apple finds it necessary to specify that such women must be “highly qualified.” The implication is that they’re hard to find or that the good ones are all taken. I could have a list, with bios, in 20 minutes.

Usually, such antiquated attitudes aren’t expressed. Instead, they reside in the minds of those at the top as secret promotion guideposts. If we want to know why there aren’t more women and minorities at the top of large organizations, we need to unearth such hidden excuses and hold them up high and long to the light of day.

 

 

Posted in Gender Issues, Leadership, Tutorials for Women | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Visit My New Instagram Art

“Revisiting Van Gogh” by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

I decided to start Instagram art and author accounts. The art one is well underway. The writing one is still in early development. Stop by the art page if you like or follow. Here are two paintings, “Revisiting Van Gogh” (oil) and below “Sunrise” (wc). Over 75 of the paintings I’ll be posting were given to people on the Covid front lines in Europe and the U.S.

Art on Instagram

“Sunrise” by Kathleen Kelley Reardon

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why So Much Hatred?

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Even ordinarily pleasant people can be provoked to meanness. Stanford University researcher Philip Zimbardo demonstrated this in a memorable study. He set up a prison simulation and asked college students to be guards and others to be prisoners. The guards became so cruel in mocking the prisoners that the two-week study had to be stopped after only six days to protect the participants from further harm. The role-players became so absorbed in the realistic experiment that they engaged in behaviors they would have rejected in their real lives.

It doesn’t take conditions like the Zimbardo study to foster meanness and other forms of unethical behavior. According to Michael Josephson, founder of the Josephson Institute of Ethics, questionable behaviors of all sorts can be explained in part by justifications we make for them. Most of us have the capacity to “anesthetize” the conscience with rationalizations and excuses. People can consider themselves superior despite hateful behavior because they perceive that so many around them are worse. This is ethical relativism.

In his book, Hatred: The Psychological Descent into Violence, Willard Gaylin wrote of the “emerging cultures of hatred.” It isn’t that hatred is new but that its reach is so great due to the rapid and extensive reach of technology.

“These innovations add an imperative to the need for containing the emerging cultures of hatred. We must investigate and understand hatred now before it seeps into our civilized world and destroys our way of life.”

So, we have the potential for moral systems to become weakened when people justify their meanness and hateful behavior as not as bad as that of other people. The prevalence of “whataboutism” – justifying an offensive or hateful act by pointing to another perceived similar one – also threatens civil society.  

We all need to do our part to prevent the contagion of hatred. The media are a significant part of this prevention as are our decisions about who and what to believe. Being wary of our sources is crucial when hatred is on the march. Otherwise, we contribute to its normalization.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Is This Another Al Franken Situation?

Photo by Mihai Surdu on Unsplash

I’ve read and watched the press feeding frenzy around Governor Andrew Cuomo’s alleged sexual misconduct, and I can’t help but wonder where they’re going with this. CNN appears to be having a field day with the issue rather than doing some serious investigative reporting. And they’re not alone. Gratuitous blame press coverage is not what #MeToo is about. It’s not what women want. Besides, sexual misconduct is a spectrum, not a thing.  

If Cuomo engaged in forms of sexual misconduct, then by all means weed out the facts, name the types, and let ethics experts and/or the courts decide the price. But let’s not have another rush-to-judgment Al Franken situation. 

Jane Mayer’s 2019 New Yorker Magazine article, “The Case of Al Franken,” reports a litany of regret. Here are some examples:

A remarkable number of Franken’s Senate colleagues have regrets about their own roles in his fall. Seven current and former U.S. senators who demanded Franken’s resignation in 2017 told me that they’d been wrong to do so. Such admissions are unusual in an institution whose members rarely concede mistakes. Patrick Leahy, the veteran Democrat from Vermont, said that his decision to seek Franken’s resignation without first getting all the facts was “one of the biggest mistakes I’ve made” in forty-five years in the Senate. Heidi Heitkamp, the former senator from North Dakota, told me, “If there’s one decision I’ve made that I would take back, it’s the decision to call for his resignation. It was made in the heat of the moment, without concern for exactly what this was.” Tammy Duckworth, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, told me that the Senate Ethics Committee “should have been allowed to move forward.” She said it was important to acknowledge the trauma that Franken’s accusers had gone through, but added, “We needed more facts. That due process didn’t happen is not good for our democracy.” Angus King, the Independent senator from Maine, said that he’d “regretted it ever since” he joined the call for Franken’s resignation. “There’s no excuse for sexual assault,” he said. “But Al deserved more of a process. I don’t denigrate the allegations, but this was the political equivalent of capital punishment.” Senator Jeff Merkley, of Oregon, told me, “This was a rush to judgment that didn’t allow any of us to fully explore what this was about. I took the judgment of my peers rather than independently examining the circumstances. In my heart, I’ve not felt right about it.” Bill Nelson, the former Florida senator, said, “I realized almost right away I’d made a mistake. I felt terrible. I should have stood up for due process to render what it’s supposed to—the truth.” Tom Udall, the senior Democratic senator from New Mexico, said, “I made a mistake. I started having second thoughts shortly after he stepped down. He had the right to be heard by an independent investigative body. I’ve heard from people around my state, and around the country, saying that they think he got railroaded. It doesn’t seem fair. I’m a lawyer. I really believe in due process.

I worry that the media glee that often surrounds accusations aimed at highly visible figures might derail the extraordinary benefits of the #MeToo Movement. There is such a thing as getting to the bottom of sexual misconduct allegations, determining where they are on the spectrum, and deciding what actions should be taken. Let’s use, not lose, our heads here. There’s too much at stake for all involved.

Posted in Gender Issues, Politics, Tutorials for Women | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

What is Sexual Misconduct? Revisiting the Spectrum of Sexual Misconduct

We need general agreement about what constitutes sexual misconduct ranging from the uncomfortable to the egregious. When people are accused, as is the case now with NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, it’s difficult to achieve concensus on the seriousness of a given offense. To this end, I’ve proposed the adoption of a Spectrum of Sexual Misconduct at Work. It is not a hierarchical list of exactly what constitutes poor judgment and what is flat-out outrageous behavior, and various actions in-between, but rather a continuum for assessing whether an accused person deserves to be cautioned, receive some punitive action or lose their job. 

The SSMW should prove useful for individuals, groups, organizations and governments and is open to their adaptation. The spectrum is described here on this blog site and more extensively in an article for the Harvard Business Review.

As with much human activity, precise delineations among behaviors is difficult and what constitutes offense often varies. We are now coming off four years of a U.S. president who could get away with saying almost anything. In his words, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose voters. But before we let people get away unscathed with sexual misconduct or lose careers to false or exaggerated accusations, we need serious work toward defining the full range of sexual misconduct. We can’t keep letting this task go unaddressed.

Photo by Philipp Wüthrich on Unsplash

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Ireland Author and Performers Join During Covid to Create Audio Version of crime mystery, Damned If She Does

Trying to do an audio book during Covid is no small feat. But this week Damned If She Does, my second crime mystery, was published on Audible. Two very talented performers, who live nearby in West Cork, did the narration. Here’s the announcement and the story of how we created the audio version being two miles socially distanced.

_____________________

Here in Schull, West Cork Covid can’t keep us from continuing to be creative. And this time two of our favorite and most talented people recorded the audio version of Kathleen Kelley Reardon’s crime mystery, DAMNED IF SHE DOES, described by Kirkus Reviews as “informed and searing” and selected by them as a one of the top “Best Indie Books Worth Discovering.”


This was new to all of us, working at a two-mile distance within Schull, mostly by FaceTime. It was a challenge with kids, dogs, cats and lots of people around and about – to say nothing of great fun!  Our thanks to Chris Noblet, too, for applying his skill in the editing of the audio version and cover design and to Grant Abramson (Pacific Palisades, CA) for his gorgeous photo of the Brooklyn Bridge.

 
So, if you haven’t discovered DAMNED IF SHE DOES in paperback or would love to hear it performed by Brendan and Camilla, check it out at the Amazon/Audible link.  DAMNED IF SHE DOES is the second book in a trilogy with the first, SHADOW CAMPUS, read by Schull’s Karen Minihan. So, it’s a Schull family affair we have going here and hope you’ll love what has come from it. The third book is in progress and will take place in West Cork.

 
Here’s a description of DAMNED IF SHE DOES and bios of Brendan and Camilla. Hope you’ll  stop by the link to hear the sample reading or decide to listen to the whole thing.

Young professor Meg Doherty has long held a dark secret. When a renowned professor is viciously murdered at a Manhattan hotel, Meg stumbles upon the scene and quickly comes under police scrutiny. After another professor is killed, it falls to her brother, Shamus, to help prove Meg’s innocence.Caught in NYC’s blinding media spotlight, gilded society and criminal underworld, the pair must confront not only Meg’s secret but a long-suppressed family mystery. When is a secret so toxic it must be revealed? When is a woman damned if she does?

Brendan Conroy is a native of Tuam, Co Galway. His career stretches back to the late 70’s when he became known playing the role of Peter Cadogan in The Irish RM, a show which continues to be repeated regularly up to this day. He has toured to Russia, Europe and the United States with the Abbey Theatre playing Jimmy Jack in Translations, Philly Cullen in The Playboy of the Western World and Tadhg in The Field.

He worked extensively with Red Kettle of Waterford appearing in such celebrated productions as Bent, Moonshine, Talbot’s Box and Translations playing Manus and then he directed The Price and Jim Nolan’s Guernica Hotel. He last worked with them playing Shay in the Irish Arts Centre, Manhattan, in their run of The King’s of the Kilburn High Road. He created the role of Tommy Clocks in Island’s Pigtown by Mike Finn, played Arty O Leary in Livin Dred’s Belfry by Billy Roche; he has also toured with Ouroborous and Druid and played George In Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf with the late and wonderful Fedelma Cullen, one of his favourites.

For the Taibhdhearc in Galway he has played in Uaisle (Aristocrats), Namhaid don Phobal (Enemy of the People) and last year he played Git in The Kings of the Kilburn High Road as gaeilge, a part he played in the film ‘Kings’ winning an IFTA for best supporting actor.

www.brendanconroyactor.com

Camilla has been singing in front of an enraptured audience since she was five years old and living in Sweden. When she was ten, she won a place in the prestigious Adolf Frederik Musik School in Stockholm where her love of choral work and collaboration blossomed.

Her late teens saw her singing in a Baptist church choir in Virginia, busking in a Sweet Adeline group in Stockholm’s Old Town, and entertaining holiday makers in Gran Canaria and skiers in Switzerland.

Camilla was in U.S. chart-topping Norwegian pop group ‘One 2 Many’ in her early twenties and then, after being persuaded she was really a lyric soprano, and furthering her vocal education with professionals from the opera circuit, including a spell at the Metropolitan Opera in New York, she played the lead role, sung in Yiddish, in the world premier of The Dybbuk, in Tel Aviv.

By this time Camilla was a mother of two and living in London with her professional musician husband, Colin Vearncombe (pka Black). After a trip to South America with her third son to record an album with legendary percussionist Julio ‘Chocolate’ Algendones in Lima, Peru, the family decided to up sticks and move to beautiful West Cork.

Camilla kept her career moving while bringing up her family. Her performance in the lead role in Astor Piazzola’s Maria de Buenos Aires opera which was performed entirely in Spanish, at Cork Opera House was described by the Irish Examiner as ‘sensuous yet poignantly fragile’. In a desire to engage with the live music culture of Ireland she formed the band ‘Dogtail Soup’ with her husband Colin, Fergus O’Farrell (of Interference), and Maurice Seezer. They played regularly in Ireland and toured in Eastern Europe. After all the members of the band played in Interference and opened for the Swell Season in The Radio City Music Hall, New York, Glen Hansard fronted Dogtail Soup for two special tribute concerts.

2018 saw the launch of Mamasongue, Camilla’s two-hour stage show featuring songs from across the world. The show is performed in five languages and weaves stories of magic and mystery in between tangos and lullabies, gospel and blues, laughter and tears. “A Musical Delight” ~ Irish Examiner

For more info: camillagriehsel.com

Posted in Coronavirus - Covid - 19, Covid-19, Fiction, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Send In The Clowns: Can Anyone be a Presidential Impeachment Lawyer?

Photo by Levi Saunders on Unsplash

Let me be generous. In all my years as a professor teaching persuasion, negotiation and politics, I don’t think I’ve seen such a disgraceful performance by undergraduates let alone a legal team representing a former president in an impeachment trial.

Yes, all signs are that they’ll win anyway. So, why bother preparing? Why bother making sense? How about integrity? How about the fact that you’re a part of history? What about all future attorneys listening?

One could argue that the former president’s lawyers simply aren’t good at public speaking. But one would be wrong. They’ve been giving presentations throughout their careers. It could be said that they didn’t have a lot of time to prepare. Then make a few powerful points, show a few slides and sit down.

Could it be that they’ll win anyway and they know it?  Still, the world is watching. The U.S. Capitol was attacked on January 6, 2021. People died. Others were terrified, many wounded. Have some respect!

Posted in Influence, Persuasion, Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Courage In The Face of President-Instigated Insurrection

If ever there was a time for courage in the U.S. Congress, the time is now. Leaders without courage are imposters. First and foremost, they seek to protect their power and position. They are sycophants and cowards preening and pounding their chests, but the first to run in the face of crisis.

It was appalling to hear some senators and representatives say they weren’t afraid when a mob unhinged by lies fed to them for years was nearly at their door. Are we supposed to think them brave? No. They were the first ones out of harm’s way. Many of their colleagues were stuck, awaiting what might have been their last moments on earth. Courage is not a lack of fear, crowing about being calm when removed from the line of fire. It’s overcoming fear in the face of danger.

None of us is born courageous. As I wrote the other day and in the Harvard Business Review, courage is sometimes spontaneous. More often it’s a skill developed and applied by exceptional people to protect what they, and those they represent, hold dear. It is a vehicle of virtue that can’t be driven by the faint of heart.

Courage is also not always the province of those in positions of ascribed leadership. As we saw, Capitol Police fought against the odds, led the violent mob away from where lawmakers were still vulnerable to attack, and risked their lives in other ways. These men and women fought while those in high places, so-called leaders, worried about the optics of sending in the National Guard and failed to protect their country.

We are still reeling from watching “the people’s house” attacked and so easily. No one can be sure of precisely the right steps to take. There are no crystal balls. There are downsides to the impeachment of President Trump as the coronavirus rages and President-elect Joseph Biden is about to start his presidency “hitting the ground running.” But doing nothing is not an option. Giving a pass to a president who instigated insurrection merely because his term is nearly over tells future presidents of his ilk that they need only wait until late in their final term to destroy democracy.

Vice President Pence can invoke the 25th amendment. That would take courage, especially since many in the mob were shouting “Hang Pence!”  He’s had four years of doing the bidding of a president who is both mentally incompetent and dangerous. This is not a time to value loyalty to one man over loyalty to one’s country and democracy around the world.

At the heart of courage is always a question:  What matters most?  The answer involves higher-order values. Those with power who fail to find within themselves what it takes to protect those values should step aside. These people are not the solution. Many are complicit, cowardly and a disgrace.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment