We can read a dozen books, and in the right context-- awesome resources, thank you. But we are really distilling some basics that we don't need books for at the moment. I'm very disturbed if this is indeed a trend, and its hard to believe it's not. the hierarchy will find whatever means it needs to rigidify itself. best On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Elizabeth Anderson <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > A lot of thoughtful philosophical defenses of affirmative action have been > made. At the same time I think it is essential for people to understand, > empirically, what the administration of affirmative action looks like and > how it complies with antidiscrimination law. I think that the popular > misrepresentation of affirmative action in the heads of faculty, as > requiring that hiring units prefer the woman, or the black or Latino > candidate, etc., who is less meritorious just because of their gender or > race is distorting deliberation on the ground, poisoning the atmosphere for > candidates, and leading even those who sympathize with the causes of race > and gender justice to feel guilty and torn about voting for such > candidates. This is why Mecke Nagel's posting from the Affirmative Action > officer is so important. But there is a lot more to be said here about > what merit amounts to in the context of faculty hiring as well. As we all > know, hiring does not go much by measurable criteria but by things like > taste, interest, and excitement in the candidate and the candidate's ideas, > the testimony of others, institutional reputation, and so forth. If > philosophy is to diversify it needs to broaden its ideas of what sorts of > questions and methods count as interesting, important, etc. > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Lisa J McLeod <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> Of course, we can go all the way back to Wasserstrom and Boxill and >> others who wrote terrific defenses of what was then called "preferential >> treatment" in the mid- to late-70s... >> >> Lisa >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Elizabeth Anderson <[log in to unmask]>wrote: >> >>> I offer an extensive defense of affirmative action in my book, *The >>> Imperative of Integration*. But if you want a short account of how >>> affirmative action actually works administratively, I strongly recommend >>> Barbara Reskin, *The Realities of Affirmative Action in Employment*(Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association, 1998). Reskin does a >>> fantastic job explaining, empirically, how affirmative action is >>> administered and why it does not violate any meritocratic principles, but >>> rather ensures a level playing field. --Liz Anderson >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Lisa Kretz <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you for this last round of emails. I recently had a >>>> discussion about affirmative action in my class and it became quickly >>>> apparent that many of my students were not thinking about the systematic >>>> dimensions of how racism functions - they failed to see how an entire >>>> structure built around, and reflecting the socialized skill set, of a small >>>> subset of the population was fundamentally exclusive in a variety of ways. >>>> The jobs themselves already often fail to reflect the >>>> experience/interests/orientations of members of othered-groups. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Warmest Regards, >>>> >>>> Lisa Kretz >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From:* Feminist ethics and social theory <[log in to unmask]> >>>> on behalf of kathy miriam <[log in to unmask]> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, February 17, 2014 8:40 AM >>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] >>>> *Subject:* Fwd: affirmative action in hiring decisions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- 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 >>>> ############################ >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Lisa J. McLeod, J.D., Ph.D. >> Associate Professor of Philosophy >> Chair, Philosophy Department >> "The return from your work must be the satisfaction which that work >> brings you and the world's need of that work. >> With this, life is heaven, or as near heaven as you can get. Without this >> -- with work which you despise, which bores you, >> and which the world does not need -- this life is hell." >> -- W.E.B. Du Bois, 1958 >> ############################ >> >> 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 > ############################ 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