Applications for tenure track CS position restricted to women only | Hacker News Reader

Applications for tenure track CS position restricted to women only

higheredjobs.com

22 pointsFemale25 comments

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?

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"?

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?

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.

If 73% of Computer Science professors were gay, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/14/doctorates [1]

[1] Yes, to be pedantic, this is not the percentage of male computer science professors, but instead the percentage of CS Ph.D. recipients in 08-09. It still does a bang-up job of indicating a discrepancy.

  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".

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. ;-)

They just didn't say who they provide equal opportunity to!

> 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

Don't take the money.

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

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."

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.

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?"

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

From the above link: "According to the terms of the bequest, at least fifty percent of the awards go to Roman Catholic colleges or universities."

Oddly, I have yet to see anyone here with his boxers in a twist over the religious discrimination.

> The position is restricted by the Foo Foundation to whites who are U.S. citizens.

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

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?

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"

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

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.

I think, in law, that's not actually how it works. The operative phrase is "bona fide job requirements." for example if you're a fireman, it's acceptable to require that you be physically fit to some level. If you're a CS professor, you would have a harder time justifying such a requirement. That's an attribute that you can change.

IANAL, etc.

It's drawn at things you can change about you.

What makes this reasonable?

You can't discriminate against protected groups - minorities, women, and, increasingly, gays. Anybody else is fair game.

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.

"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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com