The New York Times-20080127-Minorities for Money-

Return to: The_New_York_Times-20080127

Minorities for Money?

Full Text (561  words)

I teach at a state university that offers financial incentives to hire minority candidates. A department receives $1,000 for completing a tenure-track hire but $5,000 if it hires a minority candidate. I'm concerned that colleagues will make recommendations based on the financial reward rather than pursue the best candidate. Should the institution offer these bounties? -- DR. MARK E. CHASE, SLIPPERY ROCK, PA.

There's nothing discreditable or even unusual about using financial incentives to prompt estimable conduct. Governments use tax codes to promote desired activities. Businesses offer bonuses to encourage certain kinds of job performance. (Full disclosure: I have a financial incentive to write this column. It's called a paycheck.) Be wary of skewing your argument with a loaded word like bounties.

It is admirable of your school to acknowledge that some minorities are underrepresented on campus, that this is unjust in itself and that it subverts the school's mission: it is important for students to encounter professors (and fellow students) of diverse backgrounds and viewpoints. In pursuit of this goal, the school may try various things. There might be better ways to genuinely expand faculty diversity, but until such methods are on the table, and unless the danger you worry about actually emerges, financial incentives are worth a try.

Be comforted that hiring a new faculty member involves so many layers of scrutiny, so many opportunities for colleagues to weigh in, that the hazard you invoke is minimal. Remember: this tactic is not meant to lower hiring standards but to broaden the pool of people considered for the job.

For so long there has been so much social (if not legal) pressure arrayed against hiring such folks -- in effect, incentives to hire white men -- that it seems hypocritical to object only when incentives benefit minority candidates.

What do you think about our setting up a hidden recorder to hear what potential home buyers say about our property? These comments would help us make the home more attractive to buyers. J. M. P., DURHAM, N.C.

While you might have a legal right to record what goes on in your own home, this tactic oversteps the bounds of propriety. House hunters have only a limited expectation of privacy while visiting someone else's home -- that's one reason most of them keep their clothes on even when examining the bedroom -- but they do not expect to be recorded. What you propose is high-tech (and low-class) eavesdropping.

Even if your sub rosa recording were ethical, how useful could it be? What could potential buyers say that you could respond to? I wish this house had more bedrooms? A view of the Alps? The modest improvements you can actually make should already be apparent.

Where bugging the room might most benefit a seller is in negotiation. You can drive a harder bargain if you know a buyer adores the house. But this is where the tactic is most repugnant.

UPDATE: The sellers discreetly placed an MP3 recorder in their house and responded to various comments, including one about the grimy bathtub. They cleaned wholeheartedly, made other small improvements and eventually sold the place (although not to someone they recorded).

Send your queries to [email protected] or The Ethicist, The New York Times Magazine, 620 Eighth Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10018, and include a daytime phone number.

[Illustration]DRAWINGS (DRAWINGS BY CHRISTOPH NIEMANN)