Abstract

Italian universities hire professors in a way that is entirely different from the approach of other European and American universities. In Italy, there are 77 universities. The law states that, when a university announces a job opening in a given discipline, all the professors of that discipline, regardless of their affiliation, must cast a secret ballot to elect the members of the selection committee.

Over the years, powerful and scheming professors have used the electoral process to fix the outcome of the hiring process. The scheme begins with the identification of the individual who, according to these scheming professors, should get the job.

Then comes the election of the selection committee. In order to match the expectation of the scheming professors with the choice of the selection committee, the members of this committee – elected by law through a secret ballot – must obviously be pre-selected among complacent collaborators and their name notified to all the voters. Every voter receives the information for whom to vote via email, often enclosed in an attachment facetiously called a "holy card." In every election, a large majority of professors vote according to the received instruction because they believe that rebelling against this rigged system is hopeless and dangerous for their career and that of their collaborators. Their only hope is to wait their own turn by offering deference, loyalty and silence ("omertà" in Italian) to the group of scheming professors.

It is fair and sad to say that, in Italian universities, mediocrity rather than excellence is the final objective of selection committees in a large majority of job openings. In this paper we analyze the election of 27 selection committees in agricultural economics. Surprisingly, the votes’ distribution is rather uniform among the elected members of all the committees. This finding constitutes the fingerprint of the scheming professors in the crime of fixing the hiring process.

Introduction

This paper analyzes the hiring process of academic personnel in Italian universities. Two words must be explained to a non-Italian reader: “concorsi” and “truccati.” In Italy, a “concorso” (“derby”) is the process for hiring government employees. It consists of a selection committee that examines the job applications and declares the winner. When a university announces a job opening for, say, a full professor of agricultural economics, all the full professors of agricultural economics from all the Italian universities cast a secret ballot to elect four members of the selection committee. The university that announces the job opening designates a fifth member. This selection committee has undisputed authority to choose the winning candidate.

 

“Truccati” means “fixed.” In Italian, “trucco” also means “trick.” Where is the trick? In university speak, a “concorso truccato” means that the name of the person who will be chosen by a committee elected by secret ballot is known before the committee is voted in. That’s the trick. Thus, in order to achieve the final goal of matching the pre-selected winner’s name with the name of a candidate actually chosen by a selection committee, it is necessary to pre-select the members of that selection committee and to make sure that they will be elected.

 

This is done by a few (sometimes by one) powerful professors who are particularly interested in the concorso’s outcome and who will notify the names of the pre-selected members of the committee to each voter. Hence, the secret ballot is a charade orchestrated with all the pomp of the Ministry of Instruction, University and Research (MIUR) in order to transfer –- one vote at a time –- a piece of information (the names of the selection committee members) that is already in the hands of one or few scheming professors to the MIUR. The MIUR counts the ballots and formally announces the composition of the selection committee. In reality, therefore, the voting full professors act as very expensive mail delivery persons.

 

In Italy, every university professor knows the truth of the above process. The majority of professors have contributed to maintain this system of “concorsi truccati” with the justification that, in order to further one’s career and to allow access to a university career for junior collaborators, one cannot make waves. Since almost everybody has pupils, and these pupils will have their own pupils, there is no realistic possibility to buck the system. The repeated nature of the game constitutes the structure for maintaining an iron discipline among participants. Very few professors have challenged this corrupt system. Even fewer have denounced it to a district attorney.

 

This hiring process has done immeasurable damage to Italian universities in every discipline and has destroyed uncountable careers. It has swollen the brain drain of young talents and has prevented Italian universities from hiring foreign brains: The Italian university hiring system constitutes a violation of Newton’s third law of motion that says “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” That is, to the outflow of Italian researchers there corresponds no comparable inflow of foreign university professors.Italian authorities fake ignorance that the hiring system is corrupt. Yet, every few years they debate the need of reforming it. In a recent report titled “State of the Italian Universities, 2005” (September 20, 2005), professor Piero Tosi, chancellor of the University of Siena and president of the conference of Italian chancellors (CRUI), wrote that the “concorsi truccati” are only a few events in the life of the Italian universities (pages 10-11).

 

Concorsi for Full Professors in Agricultural Economics (AGR/01)

The voting results for all the selection committees in AGR/01 that were held between 1999 and 2003 exhibit a shocking pattern. As shown in Table A1 of the appendix, the number of

voters has fluctuated around 100 during these years. In all 27 elections, only the four elected members have received a significant number of votes according to an almost uniform

distribution. These uniform results suggest the hypothesis that the voting procedure may have been rigged, fixed, piloted: The hypothesis implies that, not only might there have been a

“pilot” (a professor highly interested in the concorso’s outcome) who communicated the names of the four members to be elected to all 100 full professors of agricultural economics,

but also that all 100 professors –- who did not exchange any information among themselves because of the obvious difficulty –- have voted in full discipline according to the “pilot’s”

recommendations and have distributed the 100 votes almost evenly among the four selection committee members.

 

It must be understood that the ultimate reason for “piloting” the votes in all the concorso elections is to have the selection committee declare, as concorso winners, individuals who have often been pre-determined as such even before the particular job

opening was announced. In many cases, sons, daughters, nephews, wives, lovers, and close associates have been among the pre-determined winners. The members of a committee so

“elected” constitute what is called an “armored” committee because they will faithfully execute the wishes of those people who have a personal interest in the concorso’s outcome

and have promoted their election. All this has happened and still happens in Italy.

 

The mathematical demonstration of the existence of a “piloting” scheme of the voting process hypothesized above will be done according to three distinct lines of argument:

1. Histograms of all 27 elections’ results. This discussion provides an informal measure of the improbable nature of the 27 events (elections).

2. A second line of argument is based upon the Gini index. Gini was a famous Italian statistician who worked during the first decades of the past century. The Gini index is a measure of concentration (dispersion) of an empirical distribution such as, for example, the distribution of votes in an election.

3. The third discussion is more formal from a mathematical viewpoint. We will compute the probability that a number N of votes will be distributed evenly among four candidates. The only admissible condition is that the four names to be voted in

have been announced to all voters. We also assume that voters cannot communicate among themselves for the extreme difficulty of reaching every individual when N = 100.

[For technical reasons it is not possible to include on this web page mathematical texts, histograms and statistical charts which occur at this point. They may be read on pdf. here. –Ed.]

Conclusion

The mathematical evidence presented in this paper confirms the existence of a precise design and a "piloting" scheme of voters and votes in the Italian disciplinary sector of agricultural economics (AGR/01) with the goal of declaring concorso winners pre-selected individuals. Among these elections there are also those that have seen concorso winners' relatives and close collaborators of selection committee members who, in turn, have appeared in these committees a disproportionate number of times.

 

The results of this analysis seem to demonstrate that the "piloting" scheme was clearly executed to give privileged collaborators and family members an unjust advantage in their academic career. The mathematical evidence, the histogram and the formulae that were presented above corroborate the intention of those individuals who have maneuvered the entire system in order to obtain well orchestrated selection committees capable of playing a musical score without a single note out of tune. The scientific demonstration is useful for identifying the instruments of the abuse in the election of the selection committees that are a "means" to the "end." Therefore, it seems possible to conclude with a high level of confidence, and beyond any reasonable doubt, that the "pilot" and the group of his complacent collaborators in AGR/01 have procured unjust advantages for themselves and have caused unjust damage to many people, for a long time and on all the territory of the Italian Republic.

Note: This article was first published by JUST Response on October 26 2005. Quirino Paris has been a professor of agricultural economics at the University of California, Davis, since 1969. In 2004, he was proudly expelled from SIDEA, the Italian society of agricultural economics. He had denounced the colonizing activities of some scheming professors for fixing the hiring process throughout Italy.