Academic appointments: Why ignore the advantage of being right?

Abstract

While the advancement of knowledge is the primary objective of academic institutions, and knowledge necessarily requires the possession of truth, academic hiring processes systematically disregard the truth-value of a candidate’s doctrines. In disciplines where the pursuit of truth is a shared aim but specific conclusions remain disputed, search committees treat “being right” as an illegitimate or weightless consideration, focusing instead on professional virtues such as rigor, originality, and clarity. This practice is not an admission of skepticism or a lack of conviction; rather, it constitutes a rational, tacit treaty between competing intellectual factions. Because different groups hold conflicting views on which doctrines are true, mutual forbearance serves as a critical safeguard. By agreeing to ignore the perceived truth of a candidate’s position, faculty members prevent the permanent exclusion of their own views by opposing majorities while protecting the university from the total dominance of a single, potentially erroneous school of thought. This cooperative arrangement facilitates the long-term advancement of knowledge more effectively than an exclusionary pursuit of truth within individual appointments, as it stabilizes the academic environment against the volatility of shifting departmental majorities. – AI-generated abstract.