Egon Cohen is completing a Master of Theological Studies at Brite Divinity School in Fort Worth, Texas. His research focuses on gender, sexuality, ethics, hermeneutics, and the intersection of liturgical praxis, politics, and BDSM. Egon likes riding motorcycles and eating Haribo gummibears. He is secretly still 10.
According to the Association of Theological Schools, about 1,100 students enroll in Ph.D. programs at divinity schools and seminaries in theU.S.each year. And hundreds more enroll in graduate religion departments at public and secular universities. However, job postings on theAmericanAcademyof Religion, Society of Biblical Literature, and Chronicle of Higher Education websites suggest that in any given year there are only around 200 tenure track openings in the field. Needless to say, those of us who are pursuing academic careers in religious studies/theology are a bit nervous (and if we aren’t nervous, we should be).
So, when we’re not discussing all the fun God stuff, grad students in theology often spend our time talking about our (lack of) job prospects. And there’s a common refrain that almost invariably surfaces. My friend, Mr. X, put it rather eloquently the other day: “My dad told me that I need to work extra hard—after all, I’m a white male trying to get a job in theology.”
The (by now) conventional wisdom is that the affirmative action practices of politically correct religion and theology departments make the job market especially difficult for white men. And Mr. X’s dad, Professor X, is the dean of a prestigious theological faculty. He should certainly know what he’s talking about. But still, one is naturally curious as to what data, or what experiences, Professor X based his assertion upon. So, I visited the website for Professor X’s school. Everyone (yes, everyone) on the faculty was white. And the majority of them were male.
Well, that’s just one school, I thought. Perhaps this insidious women of color privilege will be more evident at other schools. So I went to the ATS website and looked up their faculty statistics. At the 204 schools and departments accredited by ATS in theUnited States, 77% of full-time faculty are men (compared with 49% of the general population) and 82% are white (compared with 65% of the general population). In fact, white men make up only 32% of the U.S.population, but 64% of our full-time theological faculty. Unless one is prepared to argue that women—and particularly women of color—are simply less active in our nation’s religious discourse (and multiple studies have shown the opposite), one can only conclude that they face significant barriers to entry in the religious academy.
“But,” you will often hear, “affirmative action was all well and good in the ‘70s and ‘80s, it’s only recently that it’s gotten out of control, and most of those white male profs were hired before the current regime.” Fair enough. Let’s look at the ATS stats on assistant professors (who one can reasonably expect to have been hired within the past seven years or so). 71% are male, 75% are white, and 53% are white males. In contrast, black and Hispanic women make up around 15% of theU.S.population, but only 3.2% of theological faculty, and still only 5% of new hires. But they’ve got it easy.
As a white male myself, I am generally loathe to engage in “your privilege is showing” gamesmanship. But really, guys, your privilege is showing.
Which brings up a couple important questions: Since it’s so obviously, verifiably wrong, why does the “affirmative action is hurting white men” myth have so much traction in religious academia? And since so many schools/departments are (or at least appear to be) genuinely committed to diversity, why aren’t things more equitable?
In answer to the first, I would suggest that the psychology is of a piece with that of the “I’m not a homophobe, I just don’t believe gays should have special rights” trope. Gays can’t really have families, so legal family protections like marriage are special rights. Similarly, women and minorities aren’t really qualified to teach theology, so their presence—in any numbers—on theological faculties is an unfair burden to white men.
As for the second question, the answer is a little more complex, but I would ask you to take a moment and see what images come to mind when you think of the word “professor,” especially in the context of theological education. The conventional, “central casting” image is of a man. A white man. With a beard. Tall, but not too tall. Attractive, but not too attractive. He probably has a beneficent, somewhat absent-minded manner, and wears a tweed jacket with elbow patches. Or, if he is particularly rebellious, a motorcycle jacket.
Anecdotally, as a tall-but-not-too-tall, bearded white man who often wears a clerical collar and a motorcycle jacket (in my defense, I work as a chaplain and actually drive a motorcycle), I notice that my opinions often get taken much more seriously, much more quickly than those of my less conventionally academic looking (and academic acting) peers. Now, I’d like to think that this is because when people meet me, they are simply recognizing my enormous and undeniable talent. But if I win some cosmic lottery, and end up with an office down the hall from Dwight Hopkins, part of me will always have to wonder: was my good fortune a matter of luck and skill, or was it because I was born a white man, and culturally conditioned to dress, talk, and act in a certain way?
Because in the religious academy, that’s the real “affirmative action.”
Discover more from Feminism and Religion
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Feminism and Religion 
Thanks for that Egon. I used to do the statistics thing in the 1970s; statistics speak volumes. I wonder did you do comparisons betweeen professors in theological education and those in other academic fields in the Humanities? Is it worse in the seminary context?
Sorry but I can’t help but wonder if one of the reasons “the image” of a professor in the field of religion is white, male, and bearded has anything to do with any of the following: 1) the canonical texts in the field are still overwhelmingly written by white males; 2) the image of highest “authoriity” in spiritual matters is still a white male with a long white beard; and 3) the texts studied under 1) do not critique the image found in 2)?
LikeLike
Sorry, but as someone who is “too tall” by the standards of almost everyone in the world, I have to ask: why is your ideal professor “tall but not too tall”? Is the male or professorial ego so small that even a “too tall” man is too threatening? No wonder I never stood a chance in the fleld!!!!
LikeLike
Other humanities fields seem to be better (but still far from equitable), and I think the reasons you gave explain a lot of the discrepancy (and why critique remains so important).
I made the qualifications I did because we have a tendency to make judgments based on body type. People who are overly attractive/tall/athletic get categorized as “jocks,” “party girls,” “pretty boys,” etc.* And in my (anecdotal) experience, really tall/drop-dead gorgeous people* aren’t taken as seriously in academia (there’s actually quite a body of research on how the academic success of “normal” sized white boys is ascribed to “brilliance,” “natural ability,” etc., whereas large/black/female children are successful due to “hard work” and “perseverance”).
You’re also right that “too tall” is definitely a bigger disadvantage for women (the “authority” of religion unfortunately seems to appeal to a certain type of male scholar). But I wouldn’t say you never stood a chance — I’m honored to be on the same site as the author of Rebirth of the Goddess. ;)
*Although, in my mind the advantages certainly outweigh the drawbacks — I would gladly trade bodies with Sean O’Pry
LikeLike
Egon – as a Jewish/agnostic female pursuing an academic career in the study of religion, THANK YOU. If your musings are correct, than I presume your post will perhaps gain more traction and legitimacy in some circles. This issue is one of constant negotiation in the field of religion. In fact, I believe Judith Plaskow’s address to the AAR in 1998 (http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/67/3/521.full.pdf) seeks to expose just how the academy is a microcosm of the inequalities of “real life.” While the AAR has certainly made great strides due to women like her and other outspoken feminist activists in the field of religion (many of whom contribute to this blog), clearly we have a lot more work to do. In fact, as I’m applying to Phd programs in religious studies, the diversity of the faculty is one of the first things I look at, however, it is my fear that the more “radical” I/my studies become, the less desirable a candidate for teaching I will be. After all, this is still a nation that favors white, Christian (with the exception of some denominations), young, middle-upper class males. The academy, as sad as it is to say, is a type of corporation in itself, and the economy isn’t helping. However, it will be interesting to see in the coming years of your friend X’s professor dad X is correct. In the meantime, I can’t help but go thrifting for tweed.
LikeLike
Amy — Thank you so much for your kind words. And also for reminding me that I didn’t even think to include religion as an aspect of my analysis — I have quite a few friends in your situation whose only shot is as the token fill-in-the-blank studies scholar (which they still have to compete with all the white dudes for).
The coming years will certainly be interesting (here I remember the old curse: “may you live in interesting times”), but as James Cone once said, “If there is no challenge, no risk, one is not likely to [do] anything of significance.”
B’hatzlacha raba, chavera!
PS. Thanks also for turning me on to the Plaskow address!
PPS. We should totally start the Society of Academics for the Subversive Appropriation of Tweed (SASAT). :)
LikeLike
Thanks Egon. Knowing that being too tall is always a disadvantage, I always thought being pretty was an advantage, but I have come to realize that it was a third strike against me in the academy (and the world) along with too tall and too smart. Americans really do have a cult of sameness. And has anyone noticed that with Italians dominating the film media you hardly ever see a tall male actor any more. Not taller than me seems to be the watchword. Interestingly the Greeks admire tall people more than the Americans do.
LikeLike
PS I didn’t say I didn’t deserve a tenure job teaching graduate students in the field of religion, but I can say that I was never offered one.
LikeLike
Egon,
I’m curious if your stats hold for recently hired professors (past 10 years). I’m a master’s student at Harvard Div, and many of our younger faculty represent a broad diversity of race, gender, and faith. I’d also be interested to know what the backgrounds are of those currently in religion PhD programs. While, as you said, “black and Hispanic women make up around 15% of the U.S. population,” I doubt they make up 15% of those who are qualified to fill the 200 tenure track openings. This likely reflects deeper societal inequities, but it also makes it difficult for universities to build a faculty that reflects the face of America. This also makes those PhDs who aren’t white males far more likely to be sought out and hired by universities looking for more diversity in their faculty—which, as you make clear, is probably just about all of them.
LikeLike
Jeff,
As detailed in the fifth paragraph of the original post, my stats do hold for recently hired professors, although things are getting marginally more equitable. I would also push back on your assertion that the faculties at most divinity schools and seminaries (even Harvard’s) are all that diverse in terms of faith (beyond the tokenism discussed supra). And in terms of backgrounds of PhDs vs. newly hired profs, it’s about even. But again, my post focused solely on barriers to entry, which go far beyond the hiring process.
Women and minorities (particularly blacks and Hispanics) participate more, not less, in religious life in the U.S. Yet they are highly under-represented on our faculties. The only possible conclusion is that there are barriers to entry and advancement throughout the system of religious academia.
To illustrate, a good friend of mine (who looks obviously queer and not-exactly-white) was told by an admissions officer at an elite divinity school (that had already accepted her with funding) that they were happy to have her there, but that someone “like you” would “probably not fit in.”
Please forgive my bluntness, but I would suggest that women (and especially women of color) who make it through all this crap (and I have seen first-hand how real and odious said crap is), probably are better scholars on average than the 40-odd entitlement-complexed white dudes who all thought they had something original to say about Karl Barth.
But your conclusion is quite valid, this is a problem that goes far deeper than just the hiring process, and thus needs to be fixed on a structural/systemic level.
LikeLike
And there is no doubt in my mind that while faculties may need “one” Jew or one Muslim or one Catholic, most of them do not think they need even one pagan or Goddess feminist. Indeed, the problem with hiring one of the later is that the ideas are too attractive (when I taught at Claremont some of the students decided to write their MA theses on something to do with Goddesses after I left) and this either leaves the students upset that their faith was challenged or unhirable because they are pagans or Goddess feminists.
I have also heard from Goddess pagans that they are told they will not fit in or that if they pursue the subject matter they will not be hired. Both of course are true.
LikeLike
I think it’s debatable as to whether or not it is hurting white men and women for that matter. Then again, this is a positivist view on an “enlightened” discourse or modernized paradigm that acknowledges the limited numbers of white people on the global stage. This does not mesh well with Progressive thought. It used to be that ex-pat Americans ran to places like Greece to get away from it all. Will they now come running back with a Greek Default looming on the horizon?
LikeLike