Part of a larger issue really. Those who keep getting "boosts up" that give the experience viewed as "merit" to get more boosts up. Those left out work hard too and do so often with much less support. Why isn't that considered merit?

Saved this photo for my class on Historically Excluded and Underrepresented Scientists as an example of the historical and current exclusion of women and racialized scientists.

In the realm of social/business management, that is what "evidence" means in "evidence-based decision making."

Sometimes I think, like everything else in HR, it's a legal way to have evidence for decisions based on selection committee preferences. They can use such evidence for whatever they want.

Sometimes it seems like a chess game - trying to forethink and address every possible reviewer response for every possible reviewer and what your response will be.

Once you start putting these folks in charge of entire universities, a consistent pattern is very big taxpayer-funded paychecks for unqualified people who unsurprisingly do a terrible job in managing higher education.
donmoynihan.substack.com/p/new-colleg...