Leon Fink: How History Departments HireRoundup: Talking About History
I recently received a request from the chair of the Harvard University department of history for help in a search to fill a tenured position in a designated subfield (I'm being intentionally vague here) of U.S. history. Neither an invitation to apply myself nor a request for other nominations, the letter rather asked me to evaluate a list of seven scholars, and add others if desired, "both in absolute terms and relative to one another." Less than two years previously, as part of the promotion-and-tenure process within our department at Chicago, I had similarly been asked to rank a particular candidate in relation to an enumerated list of academic peers. Complying with the request on that occasion, I had nevertheless expressed serious reservations about the process.
My complaint in that instance having obviously fallen on deaf ears, I have chosen this time to air my protest more publicly. My hope is that it might trigger discussion both inside and outside Harvard -- and other institutions that duplicate its procedures -- about the norms of the peer-review process.
My objections are threefold. First, it is too much work. Taken up responsibly -- i.e., doing more than funneling back residual impressions of scholarship recently encountered or, worse, boosting colleagues you know over those you do not -- the task requires an exhaustive, comparative review of a rich trove of recent work. It is one thing to vet the credentials of a particular candidate, but quite another to do it fairly for a field of seven....
Second, Harvard's preoccupation with outsider rankings of candidates bespeaks a persistent (if unspoken) quest for a dubious "best and brightest" academic pedigree....
Finally, I object to the imperial conceit that we all have a stake in whom Harvard hires. My own department recently conducted a search to fill a position in the field of early American history. If I had written Harvard's doyens of the field with a request for a comparative evaluation of our semifinal list, could I have expected a substantive response? Somehow, I doubt it....
comments powered by Disqus
- Donald Trump Is Wrong on Mosul Attack, Military Experts Say
- Emmett Till memorial sign is riddled with bullet holes and has been repeatedly vandalized
- Posthumous pardons law may see Oscar Wilde exonerated
- Has an Election Ever Been Rigged in U.S. History?
- A short history of white people rigging elections
- Steven Runciman — historian, tease and professional enigma — is the subject of a biography
- Historian Eric Foner: Trump is Logical Conclusion of What the GOP Has Been Doing for Decades
- Ken Burns developing 'The Gene' based on Mukherjee's bestseller
- Does the 'Father' of the 1948 Ethnic Cleansing Narrative Really Want to Recant His Words?
- Max Boot wants to know “what the hell happened to my Republican Party?"