Page 143 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

[Angela] will get into arguments.
[Later in the deliberation]
I have problems with her references, because something happened. Men [of a certain nationality] against a woman who stands up for herself. Left twice because of problems.
I doubt her reason to go to [country].
After the interview, all committee members were positive about Angela’s performance in the interview. But, one of the members stated that he/she2 is “afraid that she [Angela] will get into arguments” when she would be hired. This committee member questioned the collaboration skills of Angela, which might have been particularly harmful for a woman candidate, as women are expected to excel in cooperation (Herschberg et al., 2018a). A committee member also questioned Angela’s answer about moving to another country. Later in the decision-making, and similar to the case of Delia, committee members brought up assumptions about problematic working relationships as an argument to disqualify Angela. The committee members practice gender because they disqualify Angela by questioning her truthfulness and making assumptions about her previous work situation, which in this case happens in a non-liminal way. They explicitly refer to her gender, suggesting that she, a woman, stood up for herself against two men. The committee member argued that this caused “problems”, which resulted in Angela leaving her position. They place the responsibility for these “problems” with Angela, as they problematize Angela’s collaborative qualities, and not those of the men that seemingly wrote references about her. From what I observed, the committee members did not hold actual information about such problems, but they made assumptions about Delia’s situation. Also here, committee members question if a woman candidate has told the truth, which is a strong accusation if based on assumptions only.
The only time honesty was questioned in men candidates was when committee members wondered if (men) candidates would actually come to the university or move closer to the university if they would be offered the position. An example comes from Leo (SSH1) who argues: “Ed would not move here in the future, while I got a good feeling about Dora.” Leo suggests that Ed would not move close to the university, questioning the sincerity of Leo’s application. In most committees, members discussed if candidates would actually come to the university if they would be offered the position. This mainly happened when candidates lived abroad. In this
2 Due to the way in which I wrote my notes in the STEM1 case, I could not retrieve which committee member said what.
COLLECTIVITY AND POWER 141
5