Comments on: Baylor U. outrage update: backlashalicious! History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:25:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: Historiann Mon, 05 May 2008 23:53:16 +0000 Thanks, James–I’ll work on that later this week!

By: James Stripes Mon, 05 May 2008 17:48:48 +0000 Universities hire those that make them look good, then try to remake them so they no longer represent a threat.

I dislike threadjacking, but have been obligated to inform you that you’ve been tagged in a meme by Patriots
and Peoples

By: Historiann Sun, 04 May 2008 21:34:54 +0000 ej–Andrea says that the problems at Baylor for women are “at every level from departments through administration,” but she doesn’t get more specific than that.

I agree with you: why hire people you’re just going to use up and throw away? What sane person wants to spend hir time and money that way? The problem is that even though Baylor is a private (Baptist) university, they can’t state outright that it’s their goal to hold the number of tenured women faculty to less than 10% (or whatever) of the whole. Presumably, they want to be taken seriously as a “real” university. So, it’s SO much more effective to hire women, bully and harrass them, and let the women flounder until their tenure cases “prove” that they’re unworthy, not competitive with men, etc.

How many of us have heard this before: “We keep trying to hire/tenure women, but they just won’t come/just don’t make it?”

By: ej Sun, 04 May 2008 21:21:24 +0000 I find this whole situation disturbing, to say the least. Do we know if the women denied tenure were supported by their departments? If not, I’m wondering why bother hiring them in the first place if you’re just going to deny them tenure later on. Or is the problem at the administrative level? Not that one is any better than the other…

Yet another reason why I’ll never live in Texas.