Over the years, I've told colleagues and friends about things I have seen or experienced. Many times, people have said that I should write them down so that they won't be lost and forgotten, since some of them might be useful parts of our history. I've been writing them down, without being sure what I would do with them. I decided to gradually post them on this website, and see what reactions I get. I suggest reading from the bottom up (starting with the August 2017 post "The Meritocracy"). Thoughtful and kind feedback would be useful for me, and would help me to revise the exposition to make it as useful as possible. I hope that while you read my stories you will ask yourself "What can I learn from this?" I'm particularly interested in knowing what you see as the point of the story, or what you take away from it. Please send feedback to asilverb@gmail.com. Thanks for taking the time to read and hopefully reflect on them!

I often run the stories past the people I mention, even when they are anonymized, to get their feedback and give them a chance to correct the record or ask for changes. When they tell me they're happy to be named, I sometimes do so. When I give letters as pseudonyms, there is no correlation between those letters and the names of the real people.

Monday, January 6, 2025

The Moving Allowance

While I was an assistant professor, I was asked if I wanted to be considered for a position at Bandersnatch University, and I said OK. I got a job offer from Bandersnatch in the mail two days before Christmas, with a December 31 deadline.

I hadn't interviewed for the position, but the department Chair and I had agreed that it would make sense to visit the campus before I made a decision. When I got the offer letter I tried to phone the Chair to arrange the visit, but the math department office said he had already left for Christmas. I asked about phoning him at home and was told not to since, after all, it's Christmas.

The Chair returned my call in January, and we arranged for me to visit Bandersnatch University later that month.

In January, K also received an unsolicited offer from Bandersnatch. K's offer included a moving allowance, while mine did not. I didn't care so much about the moving allowance, but I did care about fairness.

During my visit I asked the Chair whether they usually give moving allowances. He replied that moving allowances are standard for all offers. When I told him that my offer didn't include one, he said he'd look into it. He said "your husband" K's moving allowance would be higher since K's offer was at a higher rank, but we'd each get one and we could use the sum of the two.

I was disconcerted by the mention of "your husband". While I pondered what to do about it, I asked the Chair how the department would react if I accepted my offer and K rejected his. He replied, "the department would be delighted!" This seemed like an odd reaction to K's turning them down.

I said I was concerned about whether the offers were independent. He said they had to treat it that way, since they know how easily marriages break up.

I reminded him that I had not informed him about my personal life or marital status, and pointed out that he and the university didn't actually know anything about my marital status.

He insisted that he did, since some of his colleagues had told him. I pointed out that his colleagues didn't know either, and whatever he thought he knew was on the level of rumor or gossip.

Changing the subject, I asked about an updated deadline for my offer. The Chair said he knew there were other factors, like my spouse, and surely I would want Bandersnatch to give us the same deadline. He seemed to have learned that I didn't like the word "husband", but he didn't seem to have grasped why.

The Chair phoned me one evening in early February. Among the issues we discussed, he included the news that "the moving allowance has been approved". What that meant was that "since we are also recruiting your spouse," K's moving allowance was a "household" allowance, and I would still be offered nothing.

I protested, and questioned whether this was the usual way to do such things. I asked, "would an assistant professor whose spouse works in industry be offered a moving allowance, whether or not the spouse was getting a moving allowance from their company?" He admitted they would.

The Chair phoned again the next evening, and once again referred to "your husband". Feeling that greater directness was warranted, I said, "You never asked me if I have a husband, and I know what I would have told you had you asked. I would have said it's none of your business."

After discussing other matters, the Chair brought up the moving allowance and admitted that it was wrong not to offer me one. He tried to downplay it by saying it wasn't much money. And he added, "you're welcome here even if your husband goes somewhere else." (This time, he quickly corrected himself and said he meant K.)

I replied, "Yes, I could go there, but not with a moving allowance, since I wasn't offered one." I told him it's not the money, it's the principle. And it sets a precedent for how I'll be treated at Bandersnatch.

The moving allowance (or lack thereof) was not the reason I turned down the offer (and wasn't nearly the worst part of my interactions with that Chair). It was an unnecessarily unwelcoming part of the recruitment process that could so easily have been avoided.

When I showed this story to a friend, his sympathies were with the Chair. He felt that "it's hard for people to forget what they think they know," and I'm asking a lot to expect the Chair to "forget" that I was married.

I'm not asking people to change what they think. But I would like university employees to behave professionally. If someone is entitled to a moving allowance, give them a moving allowance. If you don't know someone's marital status, or don't have a right to know it, don't act as if you do.