A letter in Wednesday's Camera concerning the hiring of university faculty based on viewpoint should not go unchallenged. The statement, "The hiring procedures for faculty have always dictated that we seek out the most professionally qualified candidate to fill each vacant position," sounds good but is open to debate, particularly when judgment is heavily influenced by opinion.

Ten "Flat-Earth advocates" will more often hire an eleventh than admit someone counter to their core beliefs. How long did it take for minorities and women to achieve equal status with WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) establishments? The inequity was more often justified on opinions of "professional qualifications" as opposed to admissions of discrimination.

A skewed representation of political viewpoint in universities is perhaps more pronounced in the soft sciences where opinion is given greater weight. For the most part, this is where students are more susceptible to personal bias by faculty as compared to hard science and engineering. "We are all the most professionally qualified" is a questionable and offensive statement to fair minded individuals.

Also when letter writers use emotionally charged words like "pillage and plunder," and freely generalize to create sharp distinctions where multiple positions exist, this serves little purpose and compromises the chances of properly examine differing viewpoints. Too often someone who has never created a single job in the workplace will excoriate private executives accusing them of excessive self-interest, never thinking to gather all the facts and give consideration to the attendant benefits of the executive's actions.


Honesty and balance is needed. Honesty first in recognizing that our positions are often just opinions, and not completely fact based, and balance in hearing and analyzing and not just passively listening to opposing viewpoints.