is it possible to access the earlier posts in your previous series? I just got transferred back to this main page.

Maybe my view is too Pollyanna-ish, but I would think that you have to be true to yourself, even on the FAR form. The process is arbitrary, but for every appointments comm'ee member at X school who puts her foot down because you clerked for Thomas (and you can't leave that off the form), there's going to be an appointments comm'ee member at Y school who also went to Asia on his LDS mission. By hiding one thing about yourself on the FAR form to avoid alienating a fictional person at one school, you may be missing the opportunity to connect with someone at another school. You can't try to read the tea leaves; you just have to be yourself, be nice to everyone, and be open-minded. And expect that from everyone you meet.

curious, The links in the original post should work now. Try that again. If you have difficulty, you might try right clicking on the links, then opening them in a new window.

actually, I was hoping to access Parts I, II and III. It says the website has changed and then redirects to your current main page.

Thanks!

Even before I reached the final paragraph of the post, I was thinking that the discussion rather precisely mirrors discussions I have had with other gay people on resume matters. The post spells out well the pros and cons of being out. My own instinct is like Gordon's, to avoid covering up, although in my own case there is no obvious bit of info to include in a resume to out myself. I'm not sure if Christine is right that the costs and benefits are symmetric, though--does one strong supporter help as much as a strong opponent hurts?

In my case, it was my Jewish identity. Fortunately, anti-semitism in faculty hiring appears to have dried up substantially, so the decision to reveal a Jewish identity may not be as risky as being gay, Mormon or Republican. Nevertheless, I felt it was essential to put my identity on the table to avoid any future misunderstandings (or flush out where it might be a problem). Eric.

I am religious and currently in law school, but I hope to teach one day. I plan to not put anything that discusses my religious beliefs on my application/CV. Religion will inform my scholarship and teaching, but unlike being Jewish or being gay, I just think being a member of my religion will be such a huge strike that I am uninclined to include it. For those who reveal religious identities, how do the identites come up?

I'm not sure that most religions show through the FAR form unless you went to a religiously-affiliated school known to be more than nominally religious, did some sort of religiously-affiliated volunteer work or held a leadership post (two-year mission, Jesuit Volunteer Corps, B'nai B'rith/Hillel), or worked for a religious employer (Cathlic Family Services). I would think that most people's religiosity would not be as apparent from the FAR form.

The problem with religious views, sexual orientation, and even race is that most people know that educated people don't say, "I just can't hire someone who is gay/black/Southern Baptist." So, instead, they pick apart that candidate's resume in ways that they don't pick apart other candidates. You're always comparing apples to oranges ('99 UVa grad, S.D.N.Y. clerkship, one article in Mich. L. Rev. v. '01 Texas grad, Skadden fellowship, two articles in ASU L. Rev. and Cardozo v. '02 Harvard grad, Ph.D, dissertation ), so biased assessors can be pretextual without gathering a lot of attention.

curious:

Sorry about that. We did, indeed, go through a website change. I found the earlier posts by using our search box. Here are the links:

Part I

Part II

Part III

From a curious outsider (but one who has seen the tension of some students around Mormon or Republican grad students in the liberal arts): Is Leiter's dsire to "out" Juan Non-Volokh & Juan's desire, since he doesn't have tenure, to remain anonymous an indication of how strong this sentiment might be? And indicate (like the gut reaction to Thomas's clerk?) how difficult both hiring and tenure might be?

And of course there is something alienating. We want to be transparent. And how can you work in a system based on objectivity, facts, and transparency - the ideal law system - if you feel forced to be opaque yourself?

There seems to be a lack of commentary on the Appt Comm member who arbitrarily disqualified a candidate who clerked for Thomas. I find that experience to be yet another argument in favor of terminating tenure.

I don't agree with the alienating part.

Like being gay, or a socialist, or into BDSM, or whatever... I don't want to know. This is professional, not personal. I don't want to know about your personal life. You not only don’t have a right to talk about personal items (exempting volunteering as that is not personal, it’s expected of a professional), it’s unprofessional to feel entitled to bring it up….

Why not describe yourself as a gay Democrat with a minority background -- Hispanic is really hot right now. It should be a slam dunk, all things being equal.

I'd like a teaching job, but my field (philosophical theology) is quite crowded and as an evangelical (conservative) United Methodist, there are lots of institutions that would turn me away outright. But I refuse to hide who or what I am. Integrity is too important to me. I'll find other contexts in which to teach if I must.

What goes into the thinking of including as a member of an Appointments Committee a person who is known for her intolerance of an alternative point of view, except an identical intolerance by the original appointee? Why would one even apply to join an organization so notorious for its narrow-minded people?

Fill the FAR honestly, and leave out what should be inconsequential personal information. If one gets an interview, insist upon asking the interviewers for their thinking about the relevance of bias, bigotry, political correctness, and 'group think' in the hiring process.

Better to 'out' the prejudice of potential fellow faculty members up front than to encounter it in the hallways, the committees and at tenure time. Discrimination against protected classes such as racial groups and people with disabilities is illegal. Concealment of true intent is possible with a few cases but the pattern of discrimination begins to show over time. The liability of the institution is high if an applicant decided to protest.

My view appears to be at odds with most in this thread. I'm a Christian. That defines my life. Maybe it is naive, but I will not deny Christ. If I am meant to get a job - I'll get it.

I interviewed in December for a faculty position. I had taught two classes there as an adjunct (as well as more classes at three other schools). The interview was with the president, dean, and assistant dean. I began the interview as follows, "Competency is not the issue. If it were still an open question, I would not be here today. I suggest to you, then, that a purpose of this interview is to get to know me personally. I have one defining characteristic - I am a Christian. It influences every aspect of my life."

I went on to tell them that I was being considered as a teacher, not a preacher. I understood the line between private and professional life. But in teaching the law, it was pathetic to suggest that a fair and informed view of religion was anathema. I cited a bumper sticker I saw on a faculty car - "Imagine no religion," along with a decal of sorts that had a Darwin fish humping a Jesus fish. I told them I was personally offended by such displays. How can that aggressiveness be equated to the passive belief in Jesus Christ that is not foisted upon unsuspecting students? I told them it was time to see the religion issue for what it is - a personal choice and not an opportunity to be persecuted by atheists (who, btw, have every right to make the choice they have).

All of this was presented over the course of the interview - not all at once. My intent was to demonstrate the intellectual vacuuousness (sp?) of being biased against Christians, and the depth of thought along with the inability to teach law without respecting the Christian religion.

They told me the first week of June. I start full-time July 18.

I haven't pursued a teaching career, but while getting my MBA at a top flight school (in a very liberal city) a fellow student, when hearing that I generally vote Republican, exclaimed, "I know you were in the Army and all...but come on!"

If his view was exceptional, I wouldn't have mentioned it. His perspective was the 'normal' one, and that was at a B-school which I have to think is far more R friendly than the school of social services or the law school.

"a lower-tier school"

A good way to stay lower-tier.

Spin, gentlemen, is everything.

As a rather dumpy straight white male with a crewcut traveling among liberals, I think of myself in more enlightened terms. I am a "pre-conversion butch lesbian transsexual."

It explains my clothes, my figure, my hair, my "hardware", my lust for women AND gives me at least three full diversity points besides.

Soon there will be a recognized appellation and political movement for us "transsexuals" who never get around to being "reassigned".

I will add that to my title, my (non)transformation will be complete, and I will cop four full diversity points. Ward Churchill is a poser by comparison.

This is a tough one that I face as a Non-Mormom professor in a Mormon state.

From the perspective of someone from outside of Utah, the Mormon applicant has a problem. That is, that if they do a mission they have a 2 year hole on their resume. If they joined the Peace Corps and listed it, someone might make value judgements, and the Mormons face the same problem. But, that's not as bad as a hole.

From the Utah perspective there is also the issue that Mormons are absolutely blinkered about how to finesse their beliefs in a world of mostly non-believers. They stubbornly refuse to recast their resume in a way that doesn't make them look either less-than-evenhanded, or potentially willing to sacrifice job for church, in the name of religious belief.

Unfortunately, the Utah culture promotes this. Mormonism is a very hierarchical religion, in which it does pay to advertise on your resume that you are paying your dues. Young Mormons could be a little less tone deaf to the idea that they may need one resume within the state of Utah and another one outside of it.

Having said all this, I have always advised my Mormon students that just about no one cares about their religion in the workplace. Don't ask don't tell works in this case. Unfortunately, many young Mormons are trained to wear their minority status on their arm just below the chip on their shoulder.

This is unfortunate because there are other "religions" whose members do a better job of finessing the job market. Both the Salvation Army and scientologists are hierarchical, the Moonies have the same connection to mainstream Christianity that Mormons do, and orthodox Jews carry some of the same committment burdens that Mormons do, but Mormons seem to revel in their differences a bit more.