I would like to reply to the affirmative action portion of the discussion. I frequently serve on searches for faculty or other positions. What I can tell you with CERTAINTY is that the in-person part of the process it CRITICAL in making a good decision on any hire.
The way AA works in my experience is very fair to all. Written applications for a position (usually many) are gone through to first eliminate the clearly unqualified. The remainder are ordered as best one can guess and the short-list filled in. Following that, the group close to the short list is inspected for under-represented groups and the list is LENGTHENED. Then, after the list receives appropriate approval, invitations are made, interviews completed, and decisions made.
My experience is that no one is denied an interview that would have made the initial short list. Furthermore, surprises are uncovered. Wins on all levels.
I am not saying this search happens that way. I am saying that every job search is an opportunity to demonstrate the professionalism of the organization making the search. In this regard I am somewhat upset.
What bugs me about this process: THE DAMNED LEAKS! It is insulting to EVERY other candidate, not just Mr. Ross. Further, these leaks could ONLY come from the highest levels
of the organization. These leaks speak worse of the professionalism of the Jets than any tatoo.
My hopes include the following:
- The search is a real search.
- Each candidate is held to intensive scrutiny.
- The decision is made AFTER the facts are in hand.
- The new GM ends the farce of leaking from such a high level.