Department of Science and Technology Studies

A Report on Spousal Hiring Policies in Academe
 

Approaches to Spousal Career Issues

There appears to be many approaches to dealing with employment issues for dual career couples. Rather than try to tie them together into an extensive narrative, which McNeil and Sher do very effectively, I have chosen to categorize them in order from least helpful (reduced consideration) to most helpful (active assistance with in-house hiring of both parties).

The various institutional approaches will be considered under these categories. There will be some overlap as that institutions may have implemented or may be considering the implementation of more than one of these approaches.
 

Reduced Consideration

Some institutions actively discourage recruitment of individuals where spousal employment is an issue. Usually this is done under the pretense of rules on nepotism and the hiring of family members. Discriminating against married couples is in violation of Equal Employment Opportunity laws and guidelines. If the potential hire does not volunteer the information, asking questions in regards to their spouse is a violation of EEO rules. Usage of rules regarding nepotism in this circumstance is often a misinterpretation of those rules. This, however, does not prevent its occurrence.

Some faculty exhibit a distinct bias against the hiring of dual-career couples, automatically assuming that hiring one would mean having to hire the other, who, it is also assumed, would be an inferior selection. Others assume that the politics of dual-career couples, whether one or both are hired, will invariably lead to trouble, which they would rather avoid. This sort of discrimination, by self-reporting, is more frequently exercised against females than against males.
 

No Assistance

Some institutions make a point of stating that they provide no formal employment assistance of any kind to the spouses of new hires. Many institutions feel that it is not their responsibility, nor in their interest, to assist dual career couples. This is especially true if they believe that it will not influence the acceptance of an offer. This situation can be complicated by institutions that require responses to offers within a time frame too short for the spouse to evaluate employment possibilities in the area.

Although there is an issue of the two spouses not being at the same academic level, there seems to be an automatic assumption that the "trailing" spouse is, by definition, less qualified, and therefore would be more of a liability than a benefit, thus providing an argument against assisting spouses with employment.

Once again, there seems to be a level of discrimination between genders. Respondents to McNeil & Sher's survey reported that if a female was a candidate for a position, the institution would be more willing to assist the male partner with exploring employment opportunities than they would be for a female partner of a male candidate.

Reasons cited in Wolf-Wendel et al. for failing to assist include:

• No need / no demand / the issue has not come up
• No vacancies / lack of resources / small size
• Equity / fairness
• Policy constraints

On the other hand, Wolf-Wendal et al. demonstrate that there is a fair amount of unofficial support for partners of candidates. This is usually in the form of a member of the hiring department assisting with information on the availability of other opportunities in the area or with attempting to help to place the partner in the institution, if the partner merits such consideration.
 

Captive Spouses / Trivial Offers / Alternative Positions

One of the more frequent "proactive" approaches to addressing the needs of dual career couples is the hiring of one to a permanent position and offering the other a part-time or soft-money position. According to a study by the APS, the inferior position most commonly goes to the female partner. Once in such a position the subordinate hiree is often passed over for advancement opportunities because they are perceived to be "captive." Sometimes this may include appointment to a faculty position with a refusal to grant tenure, especially if their spouse already has tenure.

Trivial offers can range from insulting, in the sense of the institution feeling they can get something for nothing (or close thereto) out of the "trailing" member of a dual-career couple, to being as supportive and helpful as they feel is reasonable. McNeil and Sher refer to those positions offered in a sincerely helpful context as Alternative Positions.

Sincerely helpful offers come with two assumptions. The first is that it is not the responsibility of the institution to seek employment for spouses of appointed faculty. The second is that it is the responsibility of the institution to take action to attract qualified candidates, and therefore some accommodation should be made for those that are members of dual career couples. Such assistance is therefore usually given with the understanding that it is temporary and meant as a bridge to assist a partner of an appointed faculty member in finding employment.

The limitations on such appointments and on the responsibility of the institution is most usually made explicit in the institution's search guidelines. In my review of the search and hiring guidelines of various colleges and universities, this appeared to be the most common form of spousal support provided to dual-career couples. Support, assistance, but no promise of commitment.

An advantage of alternative positions is that they do address the fact that partners are not necessarily at the same level of academic development. The difference is between the acknowledgment of this fact and the assumption of it.

Trivial offers and alternative positions can include any of the following. Some institutions may adopt any or all of these as ways to approach dual-career employment issues for appointed faculty:

• Relocation assistance through the Career Development Office
• Relocation assistance through an office/program dedicated to assisting new faculty with relocation
• Access to local employment networks through the institution
• Access to regional academic consortia for leads on open positions
• Placement in staff positions (this may also exist as part of a full proactive spousal hiring policy)
• Free use of a campus facilities, with an office. This may or may not include access to support staff, but does not include a paycheck.
• Soft money research and/or teaching positions
• Post-doc fellowships
• Adjunct appointments
• Temporary appointments (to fill a slot for those on sabbatical, etc.).

Respondents to McNeil and Sher's survey noted that in institutions that did not officially offer such options, networking could often achieve the same result. Including an instance of a post-doc who, through active networking, helped in the creation of a job at the institution for their partner. Which is to say, the moral of the story is "ASK", especially if you are willing to accept soft-money positions to remain with a partner.

Please see the Contents for documents from a sampling of institutions with relocation assistance and other services for partners of newly hired faculty and/or staff. They are listed under Appendix item #5. Note that some of these also contain proactive spousal hiring policies. They are grouped here because those policies are part of a larger spousal placement assistance program.
 

Shared/Split Positions

This solution is only relevant when both partners are in the same discipline. McNeil and Sher discuss both Shared and Split positions at length and appear to favor these solutions, and they do have certain benefits in terms of providing a compromise that works out for all parties.

A Shared Position is where both partners are appointed jointly to a single hiring line. A Split Position is where the hiring line is split into two half hiring lines.

A Split Position is hiring both partners as part-time faculty to fill the same full-time hiring line. They are treated as separate legal entities and are eligible for separate advancement, promotion, or otherwise. It is possible to promote one of the partners to a full-time position while the other remains part-time, have one partner leave, etc. They do not need to be exactly half-time -- the positions can be prorated based on workload. The primary disadvantage to this approach is that both are part-time employees, and this often means that they do not have the same benefits as full-time employees (although this may be resolved with some administrative leniency). For a split position to be effective, it must be possible for part-time faculty to acquire tenure, even if only in the context of a split position.

A Shared Position is the hiring of both partners for the same position. They are treated as a single legal entity for all issues dealing with advancement or promotion. Therefore they can only be offered tenure or promoted jointly. A disadvantage of this is that it can cause marital problems, particularly if one is eligible for promotion or tenure, the other is not, and the situation cannot be resolved.

Such a structure allows either partner to step down from the appointment and the other to take it on full-time, which, if they are not at the same level of academic achievement may prove necessary for advancement.

Since married couples are usually considered a single entity for insurance and other purposes, this should not pose an undue burden on giving both members full benefits.

As with a Split Position this need not be a 50/50 split. One such appointment in the report is a 75/75 position. A notable drawback to this approach is the issue of marital discord, particularly if one partner is holding up the other's advancement, or if one is holding their half of the position hostage in resolving a divorce settlement, etc.

Benefits of both types of positions go both ways. The institution gets two minds for slightly more than the price of one, as well as two potential sources of revenue generation such as grants or patents. Such a reduced workload is ideal for couples raising children, allowing for equality in the workplace with enough time off to attend to the kids. It can also serve couples who merely want extra time to strengthen their research records. If they are closely focused in the same field then it may also benefit joint research undertaken by the couple.

Wolf-Wendel et al. cite various administrators who were very enthusiastic about the success of shared or split positions at their institution.

One respondent to McNeil and Sher's survey also points out that such a position can also provide alternative role models to students by showing that it is possible for a couple to have both a family and two productive careers. Such a situation is also likely to serve as a positive reinforcement to the couple themselves, increasing their commitment to the institution.

Drawbacks to both types of positions include the fact that they rarely produce 2 incomes, but rather something closer to 1.25 incomes. There is also the problem of each partner taking on more than half of the work of a full-time faculty member without additional compensation.

In their appendices, McNeil and Sher list the policies for shared faculty appointments at Knox College and Grinnell College. They also discuss split faculty appointment policies or precedents at the College of William and Mary and at Franklin & Marshall as well as shared positions at Oregon State University. The following institutions are also cited as having shared or split positions in the faculty -- Albion, Colgate, Hamilton, St. Lawrence, Vanderbilt, Michigan Technological, Cornell and U. Mass Amherst.
 

Spousal Hire Programs

Some institutions are beginning to take a proactive stance on spousal hiring. McNeil and Sher draw heavily on the Spousal Hire Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for information. A copy of that document in included in the attached materials. They also cite UC-Davis, Purdue, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

This approach, although usable within a department, is more effective for dual-career couple where the partners are not in the same discipline. This can apply not only to partners seeking faculty positions, but also when one partner is seeking a faculty position and the other seeking an administrative or staff position.

It assumes a willingness on the part of the institution to hire partners of hired faculty and staff through noncompetitive selection as part of a policy to hire the most qualified candidates. Often these policies appear to have developed at the institute level as part of a Strategic Hiring Initiative. McNeil and Sher spend a good deal of time explaining in detail the process at UW-Madison and UIUC.

A common policy they find for paying for a spousal position is as follows. The original hiring department covers 1/3 of the salary, with 1/3 coming from the spouse's department and 1/3 from the Provost's office. If, after a designated period of some years, the spouse's department wishes to retain them, they assume the full-cost of the salary, otherwise, presumably, the position is terminated. This approach can also be beneficial for the spouse's department if they are anticipating retirements in the next few years, allowing for a smooth transition to a new faculty member.

Although such positions are noncompetitive, there is, of course, no obligation on the part of departments appropriate to the spouse's field to hire them if no line items can be opened up or if they feel that the person is not qualified. But given the support of the Provost's office in most of these policies, it seems likely that, in such an instance, a line item could be made available. It also allows the spouse's department to take a chance, since they only have to make 1/3 of the normal investment up-front and can back out at the time when they must decide whether to assume the full-cost of employing the partner.

It should be noted that many of the policies of spousal hiring through noncompetitive selection are deliberately vague to allow for a fair amount of room to accommodate circumstances. Often they are couched in the notion of providing bridge positions until retirements open up new opportunities.

A drawback to a spousal assistance program is that it requires staffing, which is usually only effective in terms of workload and expense of hiring staff.

Please see the Contents for documents from a sampling of institutions with proactive hiring policies for partners of newly hired faculty and/or staff. They are listed under Appendix item #7. Appendix item #8 has links to institutions which are considering proactive partner hiring policies.
 

Consortium Networking

This is an idea put forward by Peter Taylor as a scheme to facilitate spousal/partner hiring. I have not seen any indications of institutions implementing this scheme and some more recent statements, such as UCSC, actively decline this option.

Although his phrasing is a little convoluted, the basic principle runs as follows: A consortium of colleges within a certain geographic region agree to set aside a certain percentage of faculty lines for noncompetitive appointments. These lines are set aside by keeping lines opened by retirement or other form of departure available on a noncompetitive basis for some period of time. These lines could then be used to address spousal hiring, diversity and equity issues within the consortium as a whole, rather than within any individual institution. Thus a person could be hired to X University and their partner would be eligible to apply for a noncompetitive line at Z College down the street.

Although nice in principle, if not the ideal solution in the best of all possible worlds, there are many problems with this approach, mostly political. Institutions would have to cooperate, be willing to leave lines open for a period of time to allow for noncompetitive placements, and get over pecking-order, or hierarchy, politics.

A more modest approach, with a consortium of institutions maintaining a common database of open positions, is more easily accomplished, and has been implemented by various institutions as part of their spousal hiring assistance program. Either approach, however, is only effective in metropolitan areas with a reasonable density of academic institutions. For instance the Capital District would be a good place for a coordinated database of open positions, Plattsburgh would not.
 

Copyright 1999 -- Peter L. Kantor