Page 139 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

stops the discussion by saying that they will get to Brian later in the deliberations. By doing so he silences Jessie and the critique on Brian. Also, Jeff expresses trust in the chances for obtaining funding for Brian as he replies to Jessie with “who knows”. This way, he leaves all possibilities open, whereas for Laura he reinforces his opinion by attributing her “zero” chances, neglecting possibilities to apply other (international) grant schemes than the Dutch one. Jeff disqualified Laura based on the grant criterion, but not Brian and Kevin. The other committee members did not attempt to change this assessment.
In the two previous excerpts, Laura was repeatedly criticised because of her academic age and her possible chances in the grant system. Jessie vainly tried to defend Laura by arguing “various people have been tenured even though they did not fulfil the requirements in terms of grant money” and “there’s nobody who has a great chance in the Dutch grant system”. The other committee members silenced Jessie’s support of a woman candidate. Van den Brink and Benschop (2014) argue that it is harder for women in their minority position to support a woman candidate. Here we see indeed that Jessie cannot break through Jeff ’s wall of support for men candidates and lack of support for Laura.
Later in this same case, when the committee came close to finishing the deliberations, several committee members added extra doubts about hiring Laura, as they brought up additional criteria that had not been raised for men candidates. Firstly, Stephen raised the question if Laura would be a good role model to female students, turning to the women committee members for an answer. He described a good role model as someone who does not “act as if they were male”. Jeff continued that an “anti-role model” is someone who is “working a hundred hours a week”. They argued that women students and academics would not want such role model. Thus, some committee members practiced gender by demanding from Laura that she meets the expectations of a good role model and that she acts as a woman. They added an extra criterion for Laura’s eligibility as the top candidate, which reflects expectations of a woman candidate related to femininity. In their narratives, Stephen and Jeff suggested that Laura should behave according to a feminine ‘repertoire’ (Martin, 2006). Anna, who was addressed by Stephen as one of the women to answer the question, replied that she did not see “a risk” that Laura would be a bad role model, which she did not further elaborate.
Immediately after, Jeff raised a second criterion that is only ever mentioned for women candidates in this study. This criterion has to do with persuasiveness and confidence. Halfway during the deliberations Jeff had argued that “it’s important to be outgoing as a [researcher in our discipline]” and had expressed worries about
COLLECTIVITY AND POWER 137
5