---------- 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