

Applications for tenure track CS position restricted to women only - Female
http://www.higheredjobs.com/search/details.cfm?JobCode=175478803

======
grav1tas
I guess I've never bothered wondering about the implications of (the lack of)
restrictions on giving your money away. Part of me thinks that Loyola could
never put out a want ad saying men need not apply. However, since the money is
from a philanthropic program, that somehow sidesteps the process and makes it
acceptable. I can see starting an endowment to open up a position, but what
are the ethical and moral implications of putting restrictions on the position
that run contrary to our societal norms? Could this mechanism be (ab)used by
organizations that wish to be within the law but also be prejudicial about
their hiring? Is this comparable to making an endowment to hire
underprivileged white men only, or is this something else entirely?

I think in academia, everybody is so quick to accept money that some important
questions are tossed aside and controversial conversations are avoided. This
may not have been thought through, or it may have been stewed over by some
people in a back room. I don't know. What I do know is that I don't hear a
whole lot of talking about prejudicial philanthropy these days. I'm not sure
what this means. Is anybody else aware of a running (decent/scholarly/well-
thought-out) conversation on this topic?

~~~
falldowngoboom
I'm also surprised that the funding source requirement somehow makes this
discrimination arms-reach and hence legal. If i was a millionaire homophobe,
could i create a fund for positions that specified "no gays"?

~~~
makmanalp
Well, the harder question to answer is if you have some money, why is giving
it solely to certain groups offensive and certain other groups not? Why would
no one get angry if, say, the applications were limited to professors from the
area? Or professors above a certain age? If I choose to never give my money to
strangers, should strangers be offended? Should they be allowed to legally
retaliate?

I understand that in a situation like "no gays" it offends that certain group
of people and is discriminatory, but on the other hand, why does the
government get to say at all who you should or shouldn't give _your_ money to?
It seems like if person X owns thing Y, then they should decide what to do
with it, and no one else is _entitled_ to Y (or a chance at getting Y) other
than X.

I guess the same goes for employment too. I think discrimination is stupid and
the hiring process should be a meritocracy. On the other hand, if I own a
business, what business is it of others telling me who I should and should not
hire?

I'm genuinely in a moral dilemma here, and I don't know the answer. Any
thoughts?

~~~
carbocation
Rand Paul has brought up analogous points. As a matter of intellectual
discussion, of course, it's all fair game. As a matter of current, on-the-
books law in the US, it's almost impossible to discuss discrimination without
bringing up the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is, in particular,
relevant to why an employer cannot discriminate _ad lib_.

------
symkat

      Loyola is an EEO employer that seeks applications from women and members of minority groups.
    

Yeah... because "women and members of minority groups" is clearly an "equal
opportunity".

~~~
cperciva
_Yeah... because "women and members of minority groups" is clearly an "equal
opportunity"._

It absolutely is. Men are a minority group, so "women and members of minority
groups" includes everybody. ;-)

------
Avenger42
> The position is restricted by the Clare Boothe Luce bequest to the Henry
> Luce Foundation to women who are U.S. citizens.

Sounds to me like their options are a) use this money to hire a woman or b)
don't get the money and don't hire anyone. Is "don't hire anyone" the better
option?

EDIT: More information on the Clare Boothe Luce Program here:
<http://www.hluce.org/cblprogram.aspx>

~~~
smanek
Don't take the money.

To do otherwise is saying you should choose to get paid to be sexist.

~~~
geeksam
From _The Princess Bride_: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means
what you think it means."

From Wikipedia: "Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century, is the belief
or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less
valuable than the other. It can also refer to hatred of, or prejudice towards,
either sex as a whole (see misogyny and misandry), or the application of
stereotypes of masculinity in relation to men, or of femininity in relation to
women. It is also called male and female chauvinism. Sexist is the adjective
form of the noun sexism. Sex discrimination is discrimination on the basis of
sex or gender."

Restricting an endowed professorship on the basis of any criterion is not
sexist; it is discriminatory. And, frankly, I think it's totally justified:
women are drastically underrepresented in the field, due to a wide variety of
subtle discouragements that mostly fall under the broad label of institutional
sexism.

The metaphor my partner uses is of a seesaw with one side on the ground. If
you want to bring it back into balance, you have to make a deliberate change
to the system by either removing mass from the side that's down, or adding
mass to the side that's up. Continuing to pile mass on in the same proportions
as before is, well, take your pick between "if we do not change our direction,
we will end up where we are going," or "the definition of insanity."

~~~
ruby_on_rails
Discrimination is justified? At first I thought I read it wrong... wow, its
sounds like you are gay/lesbian and you say that!

If you believe (or anyone believes) that women are under-represented in the
field, then why would you support the position of only hiring women? It
doesn't solve the problem.

If you believe that women are underrepresented, then address the issue, NOT
THE OUTCOME. Use that money to fund CS scholarships for women or programs that
encourage programming for female high school students. Personally, I think
that all teenagers should have learn a language(computer!) in high school; I
wish I had learned programming sooner but there really isn't mainstream way to
learn it outside of college and even then you don't get much exposure to it
unless you know its there.

This would be no different than Harvard saying they are hiring a feminist
studies teacher (A field that most agree is female dominated) but one of the
bone fide occupational qualifications is being male. There are probably
hundreds of qualified women who want an equal chance at that position. Instead
they don't get a chance at all, why -because they were born with a
vagina?!?!?!

The practice of hiring like that is discriminatory. The thought that we should
only hire people based on gender is disgusting. I'm bisexual and when I fight,
its for equal rights not revenge rights.

~~~
geeksam
That's an awfully bi chip on your shoulder. (Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.)
My gender and orientation is irrelevant to the argument, as are yours.

I agree that scholarships for women would help, but I'm curious -- why is
subsidizing students based on gender okay, but hiring professors based on
gender "disgusting?"

~~~
smanek
FWIW, I think subsidizing students based on gender is just as disgusting.

------
qq66
Interesting thought experiment. This seems repugnant at face value. Would it
be equally repugnant to have a scholarship restricted to Computer Science
majors? How about a scholarship restricted to high academic achievers? What
types of "discrimination" are OK? Where is the line drawn?

~~~
sendos
It's drawn at things you can change about you. You can become a Computer
Science major, and you can study hard and become a high academic achiever. But
you can't become a woman if you're not.

EDIT: I assume it's clear that the above means "It's drawn at things you can
change about you without resorting to surgery" and "you can't become a woman
if you're not, without surgery"

~~~
krakensden
you can for legal purposes, and you can get pretty close physically as well.

~~~
sendos
Yes, but I hardly think that it's OK to ask people to undergo a sex-change
operation to get a job (I do think it's perfectly OK to ask people to become
good in a specific field to get a job in that field)

And the general point stands, because many other things you can't change about
yourself (like your race) shouldn't be the basis of discriminating for job
positions.

------
shubber
In a field where (at the rosiest count) 25% of the practitioners are female,
and an economy where women get paid (again, optimistically) 75% of what men
are, how is it that repugnant to hire one CS prof who must be a woman? If
these things matter (pay equity, gender parity) don't we have to do something
about it?

How many of us take direct action to, say, reduce carbon emissions? I think we
ought to also be taking action to be a more inclusive group - and it's very
easy when you're being welcomed in the door to recognize the ways in which
other people are being turned away.

------
dloft
"The position is restricted by [the bequest] to women who are U.S. citizens."
This discrimination against women who are legally qualified to work in the
U.S. but non-citizens is appalling. Female green card holders unite!

