I wish that Dr. Lee had been more specific in describing what distinguished her from her colleagues ideologically speaking. Obviously, she was treated appallingly. But it would have been instructive to understand how her colleagues pegged her as a heretic on the very first day. What constituted her “white” thought crimes?
I’m also a bit bemused that Dr. Lee made it all the way through the interview process without noticing that she was about to step into an “anti-racist” snake pit. It seems that her due diligence failed her. But maybe it couldn’t be avoided, because woke social justice is nothing if not manipulative and subversive by design.
Anyway, Dr. Lee is the soul of equanimity. I hope she lands somewhere more congenial to the principles of the pro-human movement, and that she got a cash settlement commensurate with the degree of pain and suffering she was forced to endure at the hands of the benighted ideologues running that sorry institution. She won’t retire there, but she dodged a bullet.
The process by which tenure-track faculty in California community colleges are hired and reviewed helps explain the disconnect between Lee's expectations and the reality she encountered. Separate ad-hoc committees are formed for the hiring process and for the tenure-review process. Both committees include appointees from across the college, including administrators as well as faculty from multiple departments. There often is little overlap in the membership of the two committees.
My reading of what happened is that Lee received very different messaging from the hiring committee, who clearly found her approach to DEI appealing, compared to what others on campus expected. And unfortunately for Lee, her tenure-review committee was dominated by those with alternative perspectives. Earning tenure at the CCCs is usually a pretty straightforward process, but it can go very sour very quickly if the hiring committee has a different vision than that of the people with whom the new hire will be most closely working.
Thank you, that's very helpful. It's also very frustrating. The approach of having two separate hiring committees that don't talk to each other doesn't sound like the best way to find the perfect person for the job, does it?
Agreed. I think the hiring and tenure system works fine for standard academic positions, where one's responsibility is overwhelmingly just to teach. It is less well suited for roles like Lee's as faculty leader of what is more of an administrative, student-services and professional-development program.
NB: I'm just speculating here. I've been a full-time instructional faculty member at another CCC for more than 20 years, so I have a general idea how the system works--and doesn't work. But I have zero inside information about Lee's college and only know what I have heard from her many different public accounts. I very much sympathize with Lee's point of view and wish her well, but at least in retrospect, it appears to have been a situation that was doomed from the start.
I wish that Dr. Lee had been more specific in describing what distinguished her from her colleagues ideologically speaking. Obviously, she was treated appallingly. But it would have been instructive to understand how her colleagues pegged her as a heretic on the very first day. What constituted her “white” thought crimes?
I’m also a bit bemused that Dr. Lee made it all the way through the interview process without noticing that she was about to step into an “anti-racist” snake pit. It seems that her due diligence failed her. But maybe it couldn’t be avoided, because woke social justice is nothing if not manipulative and subversive by design.
Anyway, Dr. Lee is the soul of equanimity. I hope she lands somewhere more congenial to the principles of the pro-human movement, and that she got a cash settlement commensurate with the degree of pain and suffering she was forced to endure at the hands of the benighted ideologues running that sorry institution. She won’t retire there, but she dodged a bullet.
The process by which tenure-track faculty in California community colleges are hired and reviewed helps explain the disconnect between Lee's expectations and the reality she encountered. Separate ad-hoc committees are formed for the hiring process and for the tenure-review process. Both committees include appointees from across the college, including administrators as well as faculty from multiple departments. There often is little overlap in the membership of the two committees.
My reading of what happened is that Lee received very different messaging from the hiring committee, who clearly found her approach to DEI appealing, compared to what others on campus expected. And unfortunately for Lee, her tenure-review committee was dominated by those with alternative perspectives. Earning tenure at the CCCs is usually a pretty straightforward process, but it can go very sour very quickly if the hiring committee has a different vision than that of the people with whom the new hire will be most closely working.
Thank you, that's very helpful. It's also very frustrating. The approach of having two separate hiring committees that don't talk to each other doesn't sound like the best way to find the perfect person for the job, does it?
Agreed. I think the hiring and tenure system works fine for standard academic positions, where one's responsibility is overwhelmingly just to teach. It is less well suited for roles like Lee's as faculty leader of what is more of an administrative, student-services and professional-development program.
NB: I'm just speculating here. I've been a full-time instructional faculty member at another CCC for more than 20 years, so I have a general idea how the system works--and doesn't work. But I have zero inside information about Lee's college and only know what I have heard from her many different public accounts. I very much sympathize with Lee's point of view and wish her well, but at least in retrospect, it appears to have been a situation that was doomed from the start.