Last month Mark commented on Erin O’Connor’s critique of faculty job applications geared to candidates with “a particular phenotype, a particular set of preferences, and a particular set of non-scholarly commitments.” David followed up by noting that the assumptions underlying such job postings can perhaps be challenged in court.

Relatedly, Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, observed in The Chronicle of Higher Education that such advertisements frequently single out minority and female candidates as particularly welcome.

Clegg reminds colleges that it is generally illegal under Title VII “to print or publish…any notice…relating to employment…indicating any preference…based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” He specifies how this and numerous other corrupt university hiring practices are illegal.

Clegg also says that “legal challenges concerning faculty hiring…the next big front in the battle against racial preferences…are mounting.” (See “Faculty Hiring Preferences and the Law,” May 19.)

It is unfortunate that we must increasingly invoke the law, as opposed to academic leaders’ sense of responsibility, to spur higher-education reform. But so it is.