When Cynthia and I first began talking about putting a panel together on this topic, I pointed out to her that the debate was happening already, in the Chronicle, for example, and thus that the arguments for partner hires have all been made pretty eloquently already. She noted to me, though, the unique perspectives we could offer here -- mine, for example, as someone not directly involved in the issue and yet still effected by it.

My own position complements Cynthia's and Jeff's in that, like them, I have been successful on the job market, finding a position that suits my scholarship and teaching interests quite well. I am in my 5th year at ECU, and in the time I have been there, I have averaged losing one colleague/friend per summer to this issue.

First, I think it important not to overlook or undervalue the personal loss of these friends in spite of the professional nature of this setting. I doubt that anyone will disagree with the contention that one's personal life effects his or her professional life. And one's personal life extends beyond immediate family, includes friends. Losing so many friends -- needlessly in most cases, I believe, since our department could have benefited from hiring the non-tenure-track partners -- has indeed effected my own morale and that of other members of my department, particularly the newer faculty who have come in to the instability that results from losing faculty. After so many losses, I'm only half joking when I tell new colleagues that I'm not going to get too close until they get tenure. Each new friendship I develop among the new faculty is burdened by my knowledge that the person may leave -- indeed, is more likely to leave than not.

I, on the other hand, have tenure and feel pretty certain that I will remain, for quite a while at least, at ECU -- which brings me to the professional nature of my interest in this issue. As a member of the younger generation of our department, I am concerned about the department's future instability following the retirements of the generation preceding mine, since I will then be among very few members with any department history and working-knowledge of the university. Consequently, I anticipate finding myself more overburdened than usual by committee work and other department responsibilities. When that time comes, how am I going to pursue my scholarship?

A more immediate concern is recruitment and retention. Our department has recently suffered a revolving door for new hires, one source of which is the revolving door itself: If one person in the new hire's field is leaving just as another is coming in, the one coming in may find him- or herself overburdened in his or her first year. With regards to the issue at hand, recruits and new-hires in the same fields as someone in the department with an academic spouse would know that one of their potential or new colleagues could leave before they even got here or after their first year. Therefore, the new hires anticipate finding themselves soon holding the bag, and this awareness keeps the new hires on the market in hopes of finding a more stable workplace.

I offer the following still vague idea-in-progress regarding how a department might address the problem rather than wait for its university or the MLA to solve it. As a start, academic partners' fields should be considered a priority when designating fields for new lines whenever a line opens and there is no pressing need in some particular area. I hasten to say that this designation of a search conducted in the partner's field is no guarantee that the partner will be hired, but a department at least give partners with terminal degrees of their own the opportunity to apply for a tenure-track position -- and thus the couple and the department the opportunity to determine where the partner ranks in his or her field. Such a practice would show recruits and new hires what an empathetic department he or she is considering joining or has just joined.

And, indeed, that is what I am seeking -- a demonstration of empathy, of concern about the personal lives of recruits, new hires, and other department members. I do not ask that we discount credentials -- indeed, if during a national search a partner's credentials are revealed not to measure up to the top dozen candidates who apply, then I am not suggesting that an exception be made and the person hired. In the case when a partner does not make the search committee's short list, the department has allowed the person an opportunity to apply for a tenure-track appointment, the department and the couple have seen how this person competes in the national market, and the department has shown the tenure-track partner whom it has already hired and thus, I believe, is already obligated to that we cared enough to try to help his or her personal situation. On the other hand, if the non-tenure-track partner is among the top dozen candidates, I don't believe in not hiring him or her just because he or she is not the (supposedly) #1 candidate. Everyone looks good on paper, ranking the top candidates is ultimately somewhat arbitrary anyway, and I think it can be argued that a partner's ranking would be effected positively by the fact that the couple that finds a job together knows they're probably permanent members of this department. Such members are likely to be loyal and dedicated, being "stuck" as they are. Thus, again, I am not at all implying that we throw out vitas in order to accommodate partners, only that we recognize that there is a person behind the vita. Also, we need to recognize that we owe some responsibility to the partner already on tenure-track. When we hire someone, we are hiring a person who has a life which might include concerns, as Jeff's response to the issue showed, about another person's career and happiness as well as his or her own.

As a colleague not, supposedly, personally involved (in that I am not seeking a job for a partner of my own), I am in the position of being able to support this cause, again supposedly, objectively. It is my hope that others in my position will also get involved, recognizing that it is not an issue that effects only the academic couples themselves.