General Meeting Information
Date: February 16,
Time: 4:00 - 5:00
Location: RSVP - email@example.com
Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader 4:00 - 4:05 Approval of Notes – February 9, 2021 D/A Pape 4:05 - 4:10 DASB Report I/D Dadbhawala/Eloy/Lim/Sharma 4:10 - 5:00
Qualitative Equity Focused Hiring
- Introduction and Expected Outcome
- Historical Context
- Exploring Criteria
IPBT Faculty Hiring page
I/D Espinosa-Pieb, King, Pape
A = Action D = Discussion I = Information
Heidi King – Co-Chair
Mary Pape, Co-Chair
IPBT Meeting Notes - February 16, 2021
Tri-chairs: Christina G. Espinosa-Pieb, Mary Pape, Heidi King
Administrative reps: Sam Bliss, Randy Bryant, Alicia Cortez, Christina Espinosa-Pieb, Lorrie Ranck, Thomas Ray
Classified reps: Thomas Bailey, Christiana Kaleialii, Heidi King, Lorna Maynard
Faculty reps: Mayra Cruz, DuJuan Green, Salvador Guerrero, Terrence Mullens, Mary Pape, Daniel Solomon, Erik Woodbury
Student reps: Esha Dadbhawala, Grace Lim, Arushi Sharma, Luiza Eloy
Affinity Group Representatives:
Black Faculty, Staff and Administrators (BFSA): Melinda Hughes, Pauline Wethington
The Asian Pacific American Staff Association (APASA): Christine Chai, Khoa Nguyen
De Anza Latinx Association (DALA): Eric Mendoza, Felisa Vilaubi
Absent: Anita Muthyala-Kandula
Guests: Karen Chow, Lisa Markus, Sarah Wallace, Vins Chacko, Rick Maynard, Daniel Smith, Susan Ho, Elvin Ramos, Kulwant Singh, Chesa Caparas, Dawn Lee Tu
DASB Report: Grace Lim reported that DASB is still working on budget deliberations.
Qualitative Equity Focused Hiring:
- Introduction and Expected Outcome: Heidi King reminded us that we began the conversation last week of possibly splitting vacant positions into two categories: one category would be evaluated using more of a traditional formula that has been used in the past and the other category being more equity focused would be evaluated using more qualitative criteria.
- Historical Context: Mary Pape referred to the 2019-20 Hiring Data/Ranking spreadsheet containing the quantitative data such as enrollment, success rates, equity
gap, and fill rates for the departments/programs requesting a new faculty member.
This is the current process for prioritizing position requests. Mary pointed out that
the sheet shows at a glance that some departments/programs do not have data for this
type of comparison. Written Justifications is a document showing the department’s and program’s justification for hiring new
faculty members and provides more qualitative data.
Faculty hiring outcome for 2019-20 shows the ranking of 22 positions. The focus for today is on the 14 not chosen. Lorrie added context saying that we began with over 40 departmental requests to hire new faculty member. Alicia Cortez asked for clarity on what is meant by “new” and “replacement”. Christina assured that these terms would never be used again. Replacement is where the faculty member resigned or retired and De Anza retains the FTEF. Some of the requests are actually positions that are part of Service Employment Retirement and cannot be replaced for three years.
- Exploring Criteria: Heidi suggested that there are three or four positions on the
2019-20 list that will never rise to the top using quantitative metrics. Today’s activity
is directed at brainstorming equity-based position prioritization criteria that we
can apply to evaluate these requests.
Asked what our equity goals are, Christina answered that in this context the focus is on underrepresented student populations that are not reaching their academic goals. This differs from our previous way of focusing on student demand for classes.
The goal is to come up with some equity base criteria, ideas and have a conversation of whether or not we want to make a commitment to some equity specific positions. The members brainstormed, explored criteria and shared ideas.