January 2001
October 2000
Excerpts from an e-mail exchange between
Harvey Shulman, Concordia University and John Furedy, University
of Toronto
Shulman: Spousal hiring is increasingly an issue in universities. Universities
have several approaches from no special programs to designated funds
to allow appointments with tenure for married academics. As faculty hiring
is at its highest in years (and will increase), and there is competition
to recruit for Canada Research Chairs, spousal hiring has become a means
to entice a scholar to accept an appointment. It seems to me that
this practice raises major issues re hiring processes and the use of academic
positions.
Furedy: I don’t think this is an issue of academic freedom and
scholarship, because in many cases it is possible to make a valid argument
for spousal hiring. That is, if one can get a real “star” by
also providing a position for a competent but not star-quality spouse,
then in terms of overall departmental merit, this is a sound decision.
Shulman: John, your position seems to allow for “star” hiring
as a reason to compromise fair hiring for others.
Furedy: I was thinking of situations where both wife and husband are
in the same discipline, so that a single department is making a decision,
and looking to the needs of the department as a whole. Getting a
top academic is very difficult. The decision to offer a position
to a spouse could still be a decision for merit, overall.
Shulman: What about the situation where a position is arranged
for the spouse in another department?
Furedy: When it comes to getting another department to take someone
who is not the best, this is probably not permissible and, if it is done,
the spouse has to be at least quite close to the best for the other department
to go along. Otherwise that department loses out in maximizing the
merit of its faculty. I would think that no self-respecting department
will agree to take a star’s spouse simply to accommodate the department
that wants to hire the spouse, if only because departments are usually
in competition with one another for resources.
Shulman: But surely spousal hiring practices go well beyond your
circumscribed example of two positions in one department? I think
it would be rare for one department to need two positions corresponding
to spousal competence. Most cases I’ve heard of involve two departments
where special pleadings take place to privilege a candidate for the good
of another unit’s priorities. In other words, academic priorities are revised
to adjust for spousal hiring. I think that Queen’s has a contingency fund
for this through which spouses can be hired, with departmental approval.
I am not an ideologue on this, but I think it is a matter for concern.
Furedy: All this shows, Harvey, how complex this issue is. Another
downside to spousal hiring that can interfere with overall departmental
academic performance is that on controversial issues where a department
has to make choices, the spouses do, or are perceived to, form a political
voting bloc.
Shulman: Yes, the bloc vote, which could even be a factor
in other arenas in the institution, is a major downside. And even if matters
are ideal in practice, there are awkward possibilities: one day,
both may stay or both may leave (at the same time), and even if they
stay, the department might not get another appointment in a needed area
because they got a “twofer” to begin with.
The editor invites further comment on this topic.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
