218
PARTISAN REVIEW
Hence the faction-fights; a candidate who excites the greed of some is
quite likely to excite the fear of others. Hence the dismaying tendency–
even when the market favors the buyer as much as it does now-to appoint
more
if
the same,
whether "the same" happens to be the grayly mediocre or
the flashily self-confident. (If the word hadn't been ruined by its promo–
tion to slogan, I might be tempted to speak of "diversity" myself at this
point.) No one wants to admit, even to themselves, that they are moved by
greed and fear rather than merit; so we tell ourselves, though of course we
don't entirely succeed in believing it, that fitting in
is
merit. Hence the
hypocrisy, double-talk, self-deception, and sheer confusion. (Not long ago
I heard a chairman indignant about allegations of racism protest: "my
department, racist? That's ridiculous! Why, they FORCED me to appoint
a woman last year. ..").
Now I see why I doubt that a minimal policy of preferring the woman
if two candidates are judged equal-best would help much. Since the can–
didate appointed would always have been judged at least equal-best, this
should not have the same tendency
to
encourage the idea of women's
unworthiness; though it would still, doubtless, create resentment among
unsuccessful candidates. But there is the sanle reason as before to wonder
whether it would get the, or even a, best candidate appointed; and in prac–
tice what I'd expect is the same old shabby politics ensuring that a tie is,
or that it isn't, reached-as procedural-fairness policies are sometimes cir–
cumvented by decorating short-lists with the names of women who are in
no danger of being hired.
Plenty of male candidates, including sometimes the best person for the
job, fail the fitting-in test (too specialized, too broad; too quiet, too glib;
didn't go to the right school, is bound to try to move somewhere more
prestigious; and so on). But since the majority of the profession, and more
of the more senior ranks, still, is male, female candidates are apt to fit in,
by and large and on the whole, less well than male; for trivial reasons (per–
haps they have a hard time hiding how little discussions of football-in my
case, it was cricket-thrill them), and not-so-trivial (plenty of men are,
still, more comfortable with women as secretaries, wives, students, than as
colleagues). Small wonder, then, that "forced to appoint a woman," some–
times departments hire, not the best woman, but the least threatening: the
conventional, the conformist, the student of one's own mentor, or, failing
that, the specialist in feminist philosophy, who, though not "one of us,"
needn't, in private anyway, be taken
quite
seriously-and might earn us
points with the Dean.
Now is as good a time as any to say the little I have to say about the
idea that there are special insights which women,
qua
women, can bring to
philosophy. In my experience, the intellectual differences among individu-
