...or is this just weird? It's the second column written by two academics going on the job market together, although they're not a romantic couple. As far as I can tell, the only thing they share is an academic field and extensive collaboration. They argue that they do their best academic work together, so they're going on the market together.
I have to acknowledge that my own discipline (history) is notoriously individualistic and has no real tradition of collaborative work, so maybe this isn't as strange as I think it is, but I just really don't get this. Especially in these days of global connectedness, do you really have to be at the same institution as someone to work with them? Why would you want to link your career permanently to another person's in this way? What's the incentive for the hiring institution?
Am I missing something?
Updated to add: Okay, so there are a lot of interesting comments, many of which don't find this particularly odd. I think this is a disciplinary/institutional divide, as I don't think you're going to see this kind of hire happen in history departments/at small teaching schools any time in the near future (history departments do on occasion hire two-for-one, so to speak, but invariably this is a spousal/partner hire). And I should also add that my question didn't mean to imply any disrespect to the two scholars involved - it was just based on honest curiosity.