ACTA's Must-Reads
« Tenure, Transparency, Corruption | Main | Diversity for me -- but not for thee »
No white men need apply?
The American Economic Association has taken a strong and important stand on the wording of job ads. InsideHigherEd reports that when the University of Vermont economics department submitted an ad for a tenure-track opening "welcom[ing] applications from women and underrepresented ethnic, racial and cultural groups and from people with disabilities," the AEA put its foot down. Deeming such phrasing discriminatory, the organization refused to run the ad as written:
John J. Siegfried, an economist at Vanderbilt University who is secretary-treasurer of the American Economic Association, said that the group's policy was to bar any mention of any group in a job ad as discriminatory. "We have taken the position that we do not want to help anyone discriminate in any way, shape or form," he said. So while colleges can (and do) include references to being in favor of diversity, or being equal opportunity employers, the minute they mention a group, the ad is edited to remove the relevant phrases. He said that "a few dozen" ads are changed every year, most of them ads that mention a requirement that applicants be members of religious groups (for jobs at certain religious colleges).
Stephanie Seguino, associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Vermont and former economics department chair, is up in arms: "It's ironic that an organization that believes in free markets is disrupting the free flow of information," she said, and she has a point--the AEA can't change Vermont's potentially discriminatory hiring practices just by changing the wording of the ad, and by using the text of the ad to make a point about fair hiring practices, the AEA may be obscuring the fact that Vermont's practices are not fair. Still, the solution is not for the AEA to collude in hiring practices that may have serious equity problems.
Seguino tried to explain how a job ad that excludes white men is not discriminatory, but she didn't do very well. She told IHE that "The economics department was trying to build a diverse pool in a field dominated by white men and that the ad did not suggest any preference in selecting finalists or making an offer, but only wanted to encourage people to come forward for consideration. ... 'To signal to certain groups that have in the past faced discrimination that they are welcome is not discrimination, but is legal affirmative action,' said Seguino, who said that the language Vermont used had been reviewed by the university's lawyers. 'We are just signaling that, unlike some economics departments, we welcome diversity.'"
Other critics of the AEA's decision are quite clear that the AEA has an activist obligation that it is failing to meet: "The International Association for Feminist Economics has written to the AEA questioning the group's policy and saying that it has the potential to hurt recruiting efforts. 'Economics has been described as a discipline with a particularly hostile climate for women and members of underrepresented ethnic minorities,' the letter said. 'We urge the AEA to do everything it can to dispel this image."
The outcry has been such that the AEA's board will meet next month to review its policies on job postings. Here's hoping they stand firm.
Posted by acta online on December 13, 2006 at December 13, 2006 09:14 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/257
Comments
AEA has every right to not publish the ad. If Vermont does not like its decision, it can easily place its ad in another publication. No controversy here.
Academics are such overwrought Chicken Littles.
Posted by: Federal Dog at December 13, 2006 10:36 AM
There used to be signs in store windows a hundred years ago, "No Irishmen Need Apply." There's no difference between those old racist signs and today's university job ads.
Posted by: "Mick" at December 13, 2006 10:54 AM
Mick -- Well, the difference would be that, to extend your example, the same store windows might have signs today saying, "Irish welcome to apply."
The point of these academic job ads is to inform members of groups who once had no chance of getting hired that they should feel welcome to apply now.
If company X historically refused to hire brown haired people and every brown haired person knew company X wouldn't hire them, would it really be equally as "hair-ist" for company X, under a new CEO, to include in job ads, "Brown-haired people welcome to apply"?
Posted by: Alvin Lucier at December 13, 2006 01:06 PM
I've been involved in two searches in which it was stated quite openly that men would not be considered for the position. Neither position had anything to do with gender studies or women's studies--they were just two standard era-specific searches. But the male candidates weren't even considered in the first round pick, even though in one, there was a male candidate who was clearly head and shoulders above the rest.
We also had an administrative position that was only offered to female candidates.
Posted by: Winston Smith at December 14, 2006 12:23 AM
I've been involved in two searches in which it was stated quite openly that men would not be considered for the position. Neither position had anything to do with gender studies or women's studies--they were just two standard era-specific searches. But the male candidates weren't even considered in the first round pick, even though in one, there was a male candidate who was clearly head and shoulders above the rest.
We also had an administrative position that was only offered to female candidates
What you describe is a flagrant violation of federal civil rights law as it relates to labor relations. Perhaps the authors of this figure that law binds only people who lack the intellectual and moral excellence of those who sit on hiring committees in the academy.
Posted by: Art Deco at December 15, 2006 05:36 PM
Hey, MAL: Sad to read you're still AT IT (though I rather knew that you'd be loath to give up your Mausoleum of stillborn but ingratiating fancies)--now EVERYONE in academia knows (even you), as WS points out, that the vicious, cynical, demeaning (to minorities especially) and corrupt system of race and sex quotas (by whatever euphemism you prefer to call it) is rife and well at colleges and universities (in spite of overwhelming opposition to it by taxpayers and voters). You quite well know (though you'll probably deny it) that academic hiring committees dress up their craven prejudicial "selections" in "[i]t is a truth universally acknowledged" bromides as they turn away, cough, clear their throats and choose the "politic" candidate to fill their mandated quotas.
Perhaps, MAL, you might point out to us the ACTIVE efforts of universities to recruit, for example, the aged or war-vets (oh, no--I'm not "on the market", MAL!--but perhaps you are . . .) in the same way as they "recruit" racial minorities. Good luck . . .
Posted by: Jacques Albert at December 19, 2006 03:08 AM
The ad does not exclude anyone. It's weird how people who object to it insist on reading words that are not there.
What Winston Smith describes would be illegal, and I suspect he's making it up.
Posted by: atomic dog at December 19, 2006 10:42 PM
"What Winston Smith describes would be illegal,"
No kidding.
"and I suspect he's making it up."
Then you ought to spend a little time doing academic searches.
Posted by: Federal Dog at December 21, 2006 07:49 AM