Talk:Music Theory/Composition 2019-20

General Discussion
(8/1a): At the risk of starting a war, could I humbly suggest that the composers start their own wiki, separate from the theory one? Nothing would stop one group from checking the other's wiki page--it's working fine with musicology--and the theory page could likely avoid some of the MRA-related dumpster fire that we've seen in the last month. Just an idea... (10/9) Given the recent propensity for conversations to quickly devolve into overt sexism, racism, and accusations of "reverse discrimination," I would like to suggest removing the "General Discussion" section altogether. (x7)
 * (8/1b): I enthusiastically second this idea. The idea of separate Composition and Theory wikis makes practical sense. As a theory PhD, "Theory Only" jobs are usually the only jobs on the wiki I'm qualified for. Likewise, most composition DMAs are focusing their energy on Composition, Comp/Theory, and Music Technology jobs, and not applying to "Theory Only" positions. I also think that separating the two fields' wikis makes the "General Discussion" section more useful. On last year's wiki, I'm seeing a lot of conflation of the two fields, where a theorist will respond to a complaint on hiring practices from a composer, and vice versa. In my opinion, this is unhelpful at best, and harmful at worst.
 * (8/2) Agreed! Signed, another theorist.
 * (8/2b): At the risk of increasing the risk of starting a war, may I offer a respectful disagreement? Yes, there are many jobs in the "Theory Only" section that ask for someone with a terminal degree in Theory; however, there are also many jobs in the "Theory Only" section that ask for someone with the degree in Theory OR Composition. I'm a composer, yet my first job out of the doctorate was a Theory position. While I don't want to speak for anyone else, I think most people out of their doctorate in Composition are going to be firing at any application that will allow them to apply, which includes a lot of Theory jobs. Also, the assumption that theorists don't apply for Theory/Comp, Comp, and Comp/Tech jobs, as well as the assumption that composers don't apply for Theory Only jobs, might be a little off. Finally, I don't think the solution to these dumpster fires is to leave the page and start a new one; you're almost inviting Karma to send you your own dumpster fire (and wasn't the most recent explosion set off by a theory job?). I think the solution is to take the high road; if someone posts a rant/diatribe on the page, either 1. Ignore it or 2. If you must reply, be calm and well-thought-out and then move on. We can't control the insecurities of others, but we can control what we ourselves say in response to the anger and vitriol of others. My two cents, but there you go.
 * (8/2c): I agree with 8/2b. It's difficult to pigeonhole many jobs/candidates as one or the other, and it's easy to imagine such jobs falling through the cracks.  So I don't think it's as simple as just checking both pages.  The musicology/ethnomusicology divide is brought up as an example, but this is different; jobs don't seek someone to teach 18th century history and gamelan, whereas many jobs bundle together different elements of theory, performance, composition, and technology.  I also propose that, if a general discussion thread goes off on a long diatribe, we circumscribe that discussion to its own thread and move it to the bottom of the page.  That we separate generally helpful information from the "Comments Section."
 * (8/1a again): Well, I'm not a mod, so I'm not going to kick all the composers out (not that I would have done anyway). Just thought if the composers themselves liked the idea, they could make a break-off page.
 * (8/7a): I also respectfully disagree. I'm a composer, but I apply to the Theory only positions at small colleges in addition to all of the "composition" stuff.
 * (8/19) (bunch of b.s. deleted) people? can you behave? You are acting like musicologists?
 * There was a conversation here. Please act respectfully and put it back on for people to see. Just because you hate other people's opinions, and possibly what they are doesn't give you the right to delete other people's comments.
 * (9/26) Actually, the deleted conversation could be construed to contain a form of doxing, which is generally considered to be cyber-bullying or harassment. So it would probably be more respectful to leave the posts removed than to reinstate them.
 * (9/26) Gotcha. Makes sense. I didn't really see anything like that in the conversation above, so I will humbly admit that I was wrong. Doxing is bad. This definitely deserves to be a safe place. Unfortunately, I don't think above was the greatest approach though. I saw "can you behave," and the like. To be honest, I saw the person above as doing something very questionable given the right for everyone to make a comment. Apologies. If you are offended by a comment, maybe the best course of action is to calmly, respectfully tell us how you feel and exactly what offended you. Maybe not. People make honest mistakes and not everyone thinks the same way. I believe this should be a place where people can safely express themselves and what they think in a respectful way. If I offended anyone by suggesting they put the conversation back, my apologies.
 * By the way: not all the comments deleted were doxing, harassment or the like, so whatever the reason this person deleted the amount of comments they did is somewhat unknown. We can't make a blanket statement in that regard.
 * (9/27) I read "can you behave" to be tongue-in-cheek, with the poster trying to use humor to diffuse some of the tension. Similarly, the doxing happened in response to something that I think was meant to also be tongue-in-cheek. Unfortunately, humor and sarcasm do not translate that well into the written word, particularly in anonymous online forums. I think the bulk deletion was the result of someone acting like a decent person, since most of the deleted posts were consequences of the initial doxing.
 * (9/27) I definitely see/understand your point of view. Possibly, and I surely suspect it to be the case, all this argument we do on here is really misunderstanding. The inital poster probably should have been much more careful, all things considered, and myself as well. Issue resolved? Do you want to keep this on here, or do you want to delete this whole thread. I'm fine either way.
 * (8/19b) I'm a composer who got a "theory" job, so the notion of separating these things out just does not hold water.
 * (9/3): Let's get some positivity in here! Best of luck to all applying to theory/composition jobs for the next academic year! :)
 * (9/29): Will this year's job market be as horrifying as in recent years? I can already see that there are twice as many composers trying to get a job as "theorists." Based on what was said in the previous wiki, it seems there are a lot of issues like discrimination, sexism, inside candidates, spousal hires, anti-credentialism, and fake searches, to name just a few.  It's hard to stay positive when you know the reality of the situation.
 * (10/1): Well, one way to stay positive is to only believe that those issues are present when you're given concrete evidence that they are. Many of the issues in your list were mentioned on last year's wiki, and a couple of them (like "anti-credentialism") confirmed by SC members. But others are based on hearsay, speculation, and straight-up conspiracy theorizing. So I wouldn't assume the "reality" of the situation until you actually know the reality of the situation. Also, why is "theorists" in quotation marks?
 * (10/2a) The "reality of the situation" is simply that there are few jobs, and a very long list of reasons why the people reading this wiki may not end up with one by the end of this year. That long list, sadly, includes "issues like discrimination, sexism, inside candidates, spousal hires, anti-credentialism and fake searches", and there are verifiable examples of all of these. Saying this is not to excuse the incredibly awful things said on last year's page, nor does it amount to giving credence to any of the ridiculous conspiracy theories that are out there. But it helps no one to reflexively say "fake news" when confronted with the fact that these issues do, to varying extents, actually exist.
 * (10/2b) On that point, I'm sure most of us have read the "Open Letter to the Music Theory Community" recently sent out on SMT Announce (posted here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R_d03OMOcIgTizr6h1-0j7bmd8gP5OFROnuwGwlX-lU/edit?usp=sharing). One of the goals of the letter is a call for civility, respect, and inclusion, which are values I hope we all embrace. But I think a more central reason for the letter is to refute the claim that catalyzed last year's long thread, which was that reverse discrimination sometimes exists in the hiring process under affirmative action efforts. For example, the authors calculate that TT positions for the past two years generally mirror the current gender balance in music theory, thus apparently showing no evidence of discrimination. But the authors, in their self-admittedly "cursory" examination, did not look at the job cycle just one year prior, 2016-17. That year, more than half the TT music theory jobs with a named hire on the wiki went to a female candidate. It seems unlikely that this result would occur entirely by chance, given that the latest figures on gender distribution for PhD holders in music theory show a 71.3% to 28.7% male-to-female ratio (according to p.26 in https://cdn.ymaws.com/ams-net.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/files/administration/DemographicsReport-2017-02.pdf). In the next paragraph, the authors provide a table showing that higher academic ranks are disproportionately white and male, which is a good point, but they go on to say that "the percentage of female and non-white assistant professors has not grown between 2017 and 2018, thus disproving the notion that white men are being pushed out of the music theory professoriate." This is a faulty interpretation of the data, though. Looking at the percentages in their included chart, we see that roughly 39% of Assistant Professors are female. Since females make up only 28.7% of PhD music theory graduates (as noted above), the fact that 39% of the entry-level TT jobs are held by females gives evidence that females may have sometimes been favored in recent hiring decisions. In fairness, it only takes a couple jobs to have a preference for a particular gender to tilt the scales dramatically, given how few jobs are out there. The real issue, of course, is that there are over 100 PhD degrees in music theory awarded each year (see demographic data above) with far fewer available jobs. And that situation is creating all kinds of sensitivity surrounding hiring decisions. Yet for all the sensitivity and respect that the authors of the "Open Letter" admonish us to have, the letter seems rather insensitive to the hurdles that many of us face in this marketplace regardless of race, gender, or orientation.
 * (10/3) I actually don't think statistics like these are terribly meaningful (or helpful), because the central question isn't whether "reverse discrimination" (or "anti-credentialism", or any other issue) is a systemic problem. In the end, it all boils down to whatever a search committee decides is best for their particular institution based on the needs of their department at that time. So when a search committee concludes a candidate's interview by saying out loud that what they're really looking to do is diversify their faculty (yes, this has happened), what exactly is the remedy? Barring a committee from considering issues of identity in any way at all? Even if it were the right thing to do, it simply isn't going to happen at most (if any) institutions, because they all have constantly varying needs that arise from their obligation to themselves, and not to the field as a whole.
 * (10/6) - As anyone who uses statistics knows, it's best to keep the source of stats consistent. The Open Letter uses the SMT Demographic survey, not the AMS demographic survey that 10/2b linked. The SMT survey shows that the percentage of female graduate students was 38.0% in 2017 and 39.2% in 2018. This is in line with, or close to, the percentage of assistant professors who are women, at about 39.5% and 39.1% respectively. No sign of pro-female bias there.
 * I.e.: There's no evidence of systematic bias in favor of women or POC in hiring assistant professors. On the other hand, as 10/7 notes below, there's evidence of progressively difficult environments once a woman or POC has entered a TT position.
 * (10/7b) Thank you for that information, 10/6 poster; it's helpful. The authors of the "Open Letter" did not include current data on grad student demographics, so their argument did not seem entirely logical to me as presented. (This information should have been included in the table they provided, in a row above "Assistant Professor".) That said, data on current grad student demographics is not necessarily the best analytical tool for past hires at the Assistant Professor level, which are based on grad student pools from 1 to 6 years prior. Unfortunately, SMT doesn't appear to have very detailed demographic data beyond the last two years, so there is an underlying issue of lack of robust data. The fact that the wiki itself is used as a measure of job distributions is obviously flawed, but it has been one of the few tools available to assess job placement trends. This brings me back to the 2016-2017 hiring season as reported on the wiki, which may have simply been the result of random effects. But given that I was told first-hand that more than one position from that year was specifically ear-marked for a female candidate, and given that so many jobs that year went to female candidates (at least as reported on the wiki), that was the year that made me aware (which I had not considered before) that my gender (and perhaps other aspects of my identity) might sometimes be a factor in the hiring process. That's all.
 * (10/7) It is also significant to note in the document cited by the letter referenced above the "scissors effect" showing that the percentage of women declines with promotion. This suggests, as has been pointed out among university admins and EDI officers, that there are additional barriers to women--especially women from minoritized ethnic/racial backgrounds--if and when they are even offered positions. I strongly recommend everyone read Sara Ahmed's ethnographic and empirical study On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life (https://www.dukeupress.edu/on-being-included). Writing as someone who recently resigned a professorship on account of bullying and sexual harrasment, these issues do not necessarily improve once you land a job. From personal experience, these barriers emerge from an unebbing persistance of the same biased rhetoric evident in the threads on this wiki. I am still a music theorist whether or not I'm affiated with a university, and feel it's important to show by example that positive growth and support exists in our profession. It's up to each one of us to work towards collective change for the better within "our" discipline.
 * (10/9a) First of all, we've seen much worse than this in the past. Perhaps I'm speaking only for myself, but I do not dispute any of the obvious facts - that women and people of color are underrepresented in academia, that it can be a hostile environment for them, and that they are forced to confront and overcome barriers that white men simply do not face. My frustration is with the hiring process that is being used to address these obvious facts. A more productive use of this space might be to discuss - in detail - what the people currently frustrated by this process should be doing to "work towards collective change for the better within our discipline." If the only detailed suggestion you have is to shut down the discussion, or to summarily dismiss these concerns in a single sentence, then I don't think that serves anyone reading this.
 * (10/9b) If hiring practices don't change, how will we ever achieve equity in academia? But I tend to agree with 10/9 that this anonymous Wiki is not a forum that will generate meaningful dialogue on the issue of diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education.
 * (10/9c) What this really boils down to is whether the people reading this think the words used publicly by the UT Austin faculty member (quoted below) are acceptable. Do statements like these really represent the best hiring practices that will achieve equity in academia?
 * (10/9d) This is quite clearly the right solution. Even in the best situation, these conversations tend to be controversial, short on substance, and dominated by privileged/entitled voices. The fact that the wiki has ever been anything more than a running list of jobs is surprising, and the fact that people use it as a space to claim reverse discrimination (in a field as blatantly plagued with gender and race diversity issues as music theory) or to tout how qualified they see themselves to be is just absurd. To suggest that "we've seen much worse than this in the past" is a completely nonsensical argument. And this anonymous website just isn't the appropriate forum for such discussion, as anonymity invites uninformed and close-minded opinions to flourish.
 * (10/9e) Well what is the appropriate forum? SMT's "Statement of Values" says that it is committed to "open dialogue" about justice, dignity, and equality for all peoples, yet there seems to be only a single allowable interpretation of what these terms mean (and we are expected to sign a letter pledging our allegiance to that interpretation). I readily admit that music theory is plagued with gender and racial diversity issues, but if the mere suggestion that certain policies or hiring trends may cause a different type of discrimination or at least are unfair in certain ways, or raising the idea that equality of outcome may be in tension with equality of opportunity, if these stances immediately get labeled as sexist or racist or absurd or whatever, then there is really no open dialogue because some people simply want to shut down any and all opposing views. (A respondent to one of my posts had a username of "FermeLaGueule," which roughly translates to "shut up.") You can delete all these posts if you want, but it won't make the issues that face our field go away. And I defintiely agree this forum is not an ideal setting. But anonymity is the only way I can think of to engender honesty here, given how intolerant some people seem to be to any perspective not identical to their own.
 * (10/13) It's not that your views aren't "identical" to others'. It's that they are offensive and incorrect. They are offensive because they are discriminatory. They are being "labeled as sexist or racist" because they are sexist and racist. They are incorrect because their conclusions are not unequivocally supported by the evidence. The discussion above outlines the problems in your argument. It does not simply "shut down" your "opposing views." It is impossible to have "open dialogue" with someone who will not allow contradictory evidence to change their incorrect conclusions. You have been asked to stop posting your offensive comments. Whether you agree or not, that is reason enough to stop. If this were a (still anonymous) moderated message board, rather than a wiki, you would certainly have been banned by now, as posting racist, sexist, or otherwise inflammatory comments, no matter how calmly and eloquently worded, is against the rules of most moderated forums. (x2)
 * (10/13b) I agree with 10/13 above. As an interested observer, I can’t believe how much this community has devolved into toxicity. (x2)
 * (10/13c) I also agree with 10/13 and 10/13b. While of course I would have no first-hand knowledge of 10/9e's materials, based on what has been seen on this wiki, I could imagine that 10/9e's attitudes may be showing up in an interview, diversity statement, teaching statement, or application letter, which may make some committees reluctant to hire him. 10/9e should reconsider how he might improve his application materials or self-presentation rather than blame minorities and women for his fortunes. It's so current politics. It's always more productive to fix what is under one's control rather than just rant about something that one can't control and one can't even verify.
 * (10/13d) Glad to hear that you yourself would prefer to "rant about something that one can't control and one can't even verify". Assuming that this person must be someone whose bigotry is so incredibly palpable that his "attitudes" are everywhere in his application materials is incredibly unfair. Voicing a contrasting opinion on this wiki doesn't mean you deserve to be lumped in with the absolute worst people in our society. But if it gives you satisfaction to say stuff like this and congratulate yourself for it, then by all means please do turn this wiki into a forum for that.
 * (10/13e). Whoa. That is a lot of anger and defensiveness. It would be very difficult to work with anyone, of any identity, with that kind of attitude--they wouldn't be able to take criticism or act on it. And people will pick up on that kind of attitude in an interview. Also, note that 10/13c used possibilities ("may"), not absolutes. This is gaslighting.
 * (10/13d) Yes, it absolutely would be difficult to work with such a person. I personally would hate to work with him as well, because I do not share his values at all. This is why I am objecting to the assumptions everyone is making about those who are voicing different opinions on here.
 * (10/10) Here's a thought: All of this discussion centers around whether the hiring process is fair. "Fairness," of course, is a rather subjective idea, and assessing it is made all the more difficult (and contentious) when dealing with such imperfect data as is provided by this wiki. (No evidence is not the same as evidence against or for.) So maybe the wiki is actually part of the problem, not just the comments section but perhaps more so the hodgepodge method of aggregating job postings and job information. As I understand affirmative action in the hiring process, it is meant to create the most representative and diverse applicant pool available, from which the best applicant is chosen, regardless of race, gender, etc. (See here: https://www.higheredjobs.com/articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=246) In this way, equal opportunity and affirmative action can coexist in harmony. Some people may not view affirmative action as limited to simply ensuring a diverse applicant pool, but I think we can all agree that fostering a diverse applicant pool is at least the minimum goal of affirmative action (and a worthwhile one at that). And so if SMT is indeed committed to affirmative action, then the least SMT could do would be to take steps to encourage diverse applicant pools in the hiring process. That means advertising and disseminating all possible job openings to as many people as possible. But currently SMT does not do that. The MTO job listings are great, but there are more jobs out there than are posted on MTO, since MTO only responds to submissions by others. So most of us, I think, come to the wiki to see what jobs are available. But why can't SMT take over that role? I have known people who specifically *don't* post jobs to the wiki because they don't want to have additional competition for the opening. But if some volunteers at SMT are actively searching postings and aggregating them on a more organized web site, it would be a good step to a more open and fair job hiring environment. Moreover, SMT could keep track of the demographics of who gets hired in a much better and representative way than this wiki does, including data on the type of job (VAP, adjunct, TT), the type of school (R1, R2), the rank, etc, and who got the gig. (That information is ultimately available, even if the wiki doesn't get updated.) Going a step further, given that many of these job postings are at state institutions, it does not seem unreasonable that SMT could request information on the number of and demographic distribution for applicants to some jobs. How bad is it out there, actually, for anyone no matter what their identity? Personally, I think all this information could (and should) be made more public. The only tricky thing is perhaps updating jobs with the status of the search, but it does not seem too difficult to imagine a way for people to anonymously report that without opening up the floor to the Pandora's box of internet commentary. Maybe the wiki would never go away, but maybe SMT could offer a more attractive and useful alternative.
 * (10/27) The MTO listings are, in fact, the official SMT job listings. They were moved there in the early days of MTO to increase traffic on the journal's website. SMT has a job-list coordinator who searches other sources of job listings and adds to them (as of 2018 this was Crystal Peebles).
 * (10/17) Chronicle just published an article that's quite relevant to all of this.


 * (10/30) If a person or committee said, "we're only going to hire a man," it would be sexist. But when it goes the other way--"we're only going to hire a woman" or currently fashionable minority type X--it is somehow supposed to be the right thing. Well, it's not. What we're dealing with today is blatant discrimination against white males by a not insignificant number of search committees.  I have been directly told of several cases over the last few years.  I am sick of hearing about the pains that people apparently face because of their race or sex.  They know nothing about the pains I've faced.  Get over it. Life is much harsher, more competitive, and more unfair than they can comprehend, and whining or feeling sorry for yourself is only hurting the field and the country as a whole.  Do you think the Beijing Conservatory is worried about diversity? Diversity at the expense of real talent and skills is not the right way to go.  As I've said many times before, when people listen to a great piece of music, nobody says, "that was a great female piece" or "a great LGBTQ piece." There are a lot of people posting on here who I can tell 1) are not really in love with music and/or 2) are not really great musicians.  I don't believe you went to great music schools.  Where I come from, nobody had time to concern themselves with nonsense issues. They were too busy trying to play their instruments and write music at the highest level possible. If you are truly focused on that, you won't have time to worry about problems that are either nonexistent or insignificant in the context of our work.  This is a bit of the reality, despite what is taking place in many searches and departments today.
 * Yikes. Yup, the ignorance on this Wiki is definitely making me embarassed to be a member of our field.