Page 131 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

the university on the day(s) of the job interviews with candidates and stayed until a ranking of the candidates had been discussed. Therefore, they could often not join those meetings where applications were discussed and shortlists were composed. Instead, external members were asked to give their input through e-mail or telephone, as they could not physically be there. The outsider status of women committee members in STEM may have limited the amount of power they could exercise during hiring decisions, as they were not part of the department where the position was vacant and they could not be physically present during all deliberations.
I found a couple of examples, particularly in the STEM department, where committee members practiced gender by reducing women who were invited to join committees to a gendered body. An e-mail from Catherine, a full professor and external member, and the only woman academic in the committee, to the chair of the committee, shows that she is aware of this practicing of gender:
I agree with the content of the report – a good and nuanced report of the evaluations. However, I strongly object to the addition “[name of university], woman” behind my name. Please replace with “[name of university], professor [name of discipline]”. I know that you invited me because in every hiring committee should be a woman. I generally take part in that because I hope that such rule helps increasing the number of women in science, but a criterion I have is that I only take part, i.e., join a committee, when I think that I can contribute to the content and not as a woman. That is why I want to be addressed with my expertise and not with my sex.
In this e-mail, Catherine responds to the appointment report, written by the chair of the committee, about the selection procedure. In that report, a list of all committee members is presented, which explicitly stated the sex of Catherine, but not of the men members. This practicing of gender makes her visible as a woman instead of an expert member who stands on an equal footing with the other committee members. Catherine made this practicing of gender visible and objected to being set apart because of her sex. Catherine’s response also shows that she is aware of the policy requirement to invite a woman to hiring committees and that she is willing to accept such invitations, yet, only when she is acknowledged for her expertise.
The excerpt also reveals that Catherine practices gender by confirming the belief that women on hiring committees will contribute to the hiring of (more) women candidates. The assumption that women help appointing other women can create a burden of expectation and responsibility for women committee members. In the STEM3 procedure, Jessie, an external committee member, argued during
COLLECTIVITY AND POWER 129
5