There are similar patterns in the Finance discipline. Back in the late 1990s I was involved with a group known as the "Ph.D. project", which a "Big 6" accounting firm had started with the goal of increasing minority representation (both African American and "other" minorities) among business school faculty. I remember a statistic that at the time, there were only 40 or 50 African American finance faculty across the country (and many of them had degrees in Econ, not finance).
However, at the same time, there were only 40 minority finance Ph.D. candidates in the country (again, that includes non-African American candidates). So, there was a scarcity of candidates (and this was for ALL schools, nit just top programs).
I know of one program that has exploited this fact, and admitted a significant number of minority students into their program, since they feel that if they're at all qualified, they can place them at reasonable schools.
Prof Depkens remarks while provocative, are all too commonly offered to justify the racial status quo. Do invoke "poorly trained" merely adds to the confusion, as this too is more than likely a description disproportionatly applied to black candidates.
I happen to know that Depken is at UT-Arlington--a school that has never hired a black economist as well. So, why not rationalize that of those on the list identified in the JBHE and in my database--they are not simply "well-trained" enough to be on the economics faculty at UT-Arlington.
My institution, Jackson State has 9 black economists--no other institution in Mississippi can rival this----somthing is amiss.
I would like to make additional, and perhaps clarifying responses to your insights on the dearth of black economists on economics faculties.
First let say that for sake of argument, I will make you a Straw man. No personal offense intended, as I do not know you, and assume you are a gentleman, and fine human being.
Your neoclasical logic certainly makes sense--if it were applicable---I think it is not. The underrrepresentation of black economists suggest that there is a "distaste" for them on economics faculties. If you will---racial preferences are not homogenenous across departments as would be needed to get the competitive outcomes you seem to allude to.
I will also presume that you are as "smug" in your whiteness as I am in my blackness. Both of us seek explanations of the status quo that rationalizes what we see, and our models/analytics will be biased as such (Are economists value-free?) Both of us can construct narratives, models, and empirics that explain why over a 109 year period, the typical Ph.D granting program in economics has no black faculty. Moreover if we extend it, we can also explain why regional programs like UT-Arlington, fare worst then the top 5 programs with respect to black economics faculty.
As for Harvard not hiring Georiga Ph.D's...sure, I will concede that. However, Harvard, and the top 5 programs in general have a track record of hiring black economists. In fact it is places like Georgia that do not hire black economists. Nor to similar institutions (e.g, Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana--all states with high black populations).
Regional programs like UT-Arlingtion seem equally hostile to black economists. To invoke "quality of training" arguments is a ruse, and does not explain why places like Georgia, UT-Arlington, UT-San Antonio,..etc..refuse to hire black economists. Does one need a Ph.D from MIT to work at UT-Arlington? Or is that the standard for blacks, as whites do not trust the cognitive abilities of black economists unless they have been vetted by whites at MIT?
We obviously disagree on what explains the facts Prof. Depken. I am confident that at most one of us is correct.
Nice site http://stacey-keebler.blogspot.com/