I also am pondering the way that as someone mentioned affirmative action is being misinterpreted--as if opposed to merit. It's a powerful merit-based approach to breaking down *non-merit* based male and white dominance in departments. why isn't that obvious? it's still not obvious to the main/malestream that dominance for white-male hierarchies is non-merit-based, imagine! On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:40 AM, kathy miriam <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: kathy miriam <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:39 AM > Subject: Re: affirmative action in hiring decisions > To: Mecke Nagel <[log in to unmask]> > > > Thanks Mecke. This is incredibly helpful. To me it seems an insight is > emerging on this list (or maybe this is not a new insight for many--it > seems obvious now that i think about it) into another tacit rather than > explicit level of misogyny (or in other cases i'm sure racism) in hiring > practices. It seems another old boy tactic (with token women believe me) > --an insider, invisible way of cementing the status quo to tell a male > (white) candidate that they lost job due to affirmative action--vile. > > Kathy > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Mecke Nagel <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, >> I asked our Affirmative Action officer about the legality of telling a >> candidate that they didn't get the job "because of Affirmative Action." >> Her response: >> Good Morning, Mecke >> >> No candidate for a position with Cortland should ever be told this. To >> follow is the language that appears in our search procedure manual, which >> outlines how search committee members are trained on the intent of >> Affirmative Action during our searches: >> >> Affirmative Action >> Federal affirmative action law requires employers to take positive >> measures to recruit and employ qualified women and minorities to correct >> effects of past discrimination. An affirmative action program is a set of >> specific and result-oriented procedures conducted in good faith to >> encourage the ideals of equal employment opportunity. Affirmative action is >> not a quota system and does not give hiring preference to those who are not >> qualified for positions. >> >> Will affirmative action result in reverse discrimination? >> No. Discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, >> ancestry, sex and age is illegal. Any person has the right to file a >> complaint if he or she believes an opportunity has been denied because of >> discrimination. Any form of discrimination conflicts with the intent of >> Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity law. >> >> Is affirmative action a form of preferential treatment? >> Affirmative action is designed to correct underutilization. It is not >> designed to prefer minorities and females to the exclusion of other groups. >> Affirmative action increases levels of diversity by actively finding ways >> to encourage under-represented groups to apply for vacant positions, such >> as by placing job postings in publications and via media known to be >> accessed by target groups, as well as through traditional media. >> Affirmative action also works to ensure that selection criteria are valid >> and directly related to job performance, to ensure the suitability of each >> candidate is evaluated objectively, and potential sources of unfair >> advantage/disadvantage are eliminated from the process. >> >> Does affirmative action mean lowering standards? >> No. Meaningful standards for qualifications and job performance should >> not be lowered. However, affirmative action does mean changing standards >> when it is found, for example, that minimum qualifications which screen out >> a disproportionate number of persons of a certain protected group are >> unduly stringent, are not job related, or do not predict job performance. >> Affirmative action also means developing selection strategies which measure >> the skills required for the job instead of using artificial measurements >> which serve only to reduce the number of applicants. >> >> Are employers expected to hire the "less qualified" over the "more >> qualified" to meet affirmative action goals? >> No. The fully qualified candidate must always be appointed over one who >> is less qualified. The job must be offered to the applicant who is judged, >> against valid, job-related criteria, to be most likely to perform >> successfully in the position. Employers are not expected to establish any >> hiring practices that conflict with the principles of sound personnel >> management and equal opportunity law. When candidates demonstrate equal >> likelihood of being able to perform successfully, the "best" or "most" >> qualified applicant may be the one who is most motivated, has demonstrated >> potential or brings diversity into the workforce. The organization benefits >> from having the broad representation of ideas, perspectives, experiences >> and problem-solving approaches that a high level of workforce diversity >> provides. >> >> >> Best, >> Mecke >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> From: Elizabeth Anderson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Reply-To: Elizabeth Anderson <[log in to unmask]<mailto: >> [log in to unmask]>> >> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:52:16 -0500 >> To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" < >> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Subject: Re: Study showing that women in philosophy are hired in >> proportion to their percentage of PhDs >> >> I know that some male candidates have been told by supporters in >> departments where they got an interview but not an offer that they lost out >> due to affirmative action. This might be intended to soften the blow to >> the losing candidates when an honest appraisal of their relative merits >> would sting, but it also has pernicious effects on the reception of women >> in the discipline, and promotes opposition to affirmative action. >> It also rests on confusion about what affirmative action is about and why >> it is important for epistemic purposes. The common understanding of >> affirmative action as opposed to merit is just plain wrong, as I argue in >> my book, and will be something I touch on in my Dewey Lecture at the APA >> Central meetings at the end of the month. >> >> --Liz Anderson >> >> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Bonnie Mann <[log in to unmask]<mailto: >> [log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> Peggy et. al., >> >> I agree that this is good news, what is interesting is that it doesn't >> seem to support the perception (one that I've heard) that women get hired >> more easily than men because of affirmative action. It also reminds us that >> we have work to do at an earlier level, to make sure that the percentage of >> women receiving degrees in philosophy increases. >> >> Bonnie >> >> --- >> Dr. Bonnie Mann >> Associate Professor of Philosophy >> Department of Philosophy >> University of Oregon >> Eugene, OR 97403-1295 >> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> >> >> On 2014/02/16 07:43, Peggy DesAutels wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I just added the following to >> http://www.apaonlinecsw.org/data-on-women-in-philosophy [1]. >> >> CSW JOBS FOR PHILOSOPHERS EMPLOYMENT STUDY [2] >> >> Miriam Solomon and John Clark, 2009 >> This is a report of faculty hires following Jobs for Philosophers >> (JFP) Volume 175 and 176 (October and November 2007). One of the key >> conclusions is: Women were hired in all categories in proportion to >> their percentage of PhD's (this includes temporary positions and >> postdocs, tenure-track positions, and positions in Leiter-ranked >> departments). >> >> Peggy >> >> Peggy DesAutels >> Professor >> Department of Philosophy >> University of Dayton >> http://www.peggydesautels.com<http://www.peggydesautels.com/> [3] >> >> >> ############################ >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list: >> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] >> or click the following link: >> https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1 >> > > > ############################ To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: https://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1