linda@watmath.waterloo.EDU (Linda Carson) (11/21/90)
The recent vague and ill-informed postings about the Ontario College of Art's new hiring policies should make everyone question the accuracy of any affirmative action urban legends they hear. Please do not circulate friend-of-a-friend stories or I-heard-that-they accounts without confirming the details. They will be used as *facts* to support people's positions (pro and con) on affirmative action. We've already gone from alarmist headlines in (Canadian) newspapers to an inaccurate soc.feminism posting (con?) [without any details of the history of the case or the nature of the decision-making body] to a sweeping judgement of some kinds of affirmative action plans (pro?) based on that description. Some of the headlines bore little resemblance to the articles they introduced ("Men Need Not Apply") and OCA and the media handled the situation badly. Perhaps on the basis of reading the headlines rather than the newspaper articles, Steve Watson (watson@spock.UUCP) said: > Subject: Re: Feminism's ill effects on men? > Summary: Ontario College of Art: Men need not apply. > Keywords: oppression reverse_discrimination > > Last year the Ontario College of Art instituted a policy according to which > teaching vacancies will only be available to WOMEN. This will continue ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Untrue: only openings created by *retirement* will be limited to women. > until the faculty is 50% women. At current turnover rates, this should ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The target is 38% female representation. > take 10 or 20 years. (I may have some details wrong, corrections welcome) ^^^^^^^^ Since this policy is based on retirements, they can predict quite accurately how long it will take to reach the target. They expect to be there in a decade (not two). > ...However, I find this extreme form > reverse discrimination to be more than I can quite swallow. It constitutes > a clear case of oppression of men by (an aberration of?) feminism. > If you are a young male art teacher in Ontario, you are automatically > disqualified from competing for a job at the province's most prestigious > art school (I believe most of us would accept denial of employment for which > one is otherwise qualified as constituting 'oppression'?). > > But the men who are locked out at OCA are NOT, in general, the ones who > created the situation: it is not fair to them. Then "r.a." (RA04@Lehigh.UCAR.EDU) follows up: > From: RA04@Lehigh.UCAR.EDU > Subject: Re: Feminism's ill effects on men? > The Ontario College of Art's women-only hiring criteria mentioned here > sounds suspiciously like an "affirmative action" taken chiefly so that > it can be thrown out as obviously unfair. I know of such a situation > in an American university; several departments were all men, and the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ danger sign of an apocryphal story; this story may well be true, but anonymous participants and locations are prime symptoms of an urban myth in the making... > university had a bunch of federal dollars coming in, so some kind of > AA had to be instituted, so the guys in dept ---- were unfairly beat > on because their field was kind of wimpy, y'know, not EE or CE, and so > the top men in that dept made a point of hiring some very mediocre > women as new asst profs, with the intention of terminating them for > not meeting department standards before the tenure decision rolled > around. And ya wonder why some feminists feel paranoid? > > r.a. For people who are concerned about the fairness or unfairness of the recent decision at OCA, I have gone to the files to briefly recap the story (from articles in the Toronto Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, and U.W. Gazette): -- In 1985, OCA internal review concludes that representation of women on faculty is unsatisfactory -- OCA decides to implement an informal, voluntary program of increased hiring of women -- In 1988, OCA reviews its progress: 25% of faculty members are female and they teach only 13% of the courses; cost-cutting measures had *reduced* full-time female faculty by half over a decade -- OCA has the second-lowest proportion of women faculty of any art college in Canada (after Emily Carr in B.C.: 22%) -- With provincial grant money, OCA does research to check its figures; is there some way to account for the decrease? Maybe there aren't any quality women artists? -- student body includes slightly more women than men -- female students graduate and win the majority of the awards -- Canada Council grants to artists in the 80s: 40% female -- OCA concludes, to its own satisfaction, that there *is* a pool of well-qualified women available and that OCA has somehow been discriminating systematically against hiring them in spite of having explicitly set out to reverse existing discrimination [Many Ontario universities, colleges and businesses have been making similar investigations and establishing their own hiring policies in response to human rights legislation that is being introduced now and over the next few years. Hiring equity for women is the first phase: visible minorities, native peoples and the disabled have also been identified as victims of historical discrimination.] -- OCA resolves to set up a *formal* policy of affirmative action, since the well-intentioned informal approach was completely ineffective -- September 1989, OCA sets a 38% target for women on faculty and chooses what it initially believes will be the least controversial hiring policy -- it will fill only openings created by *retirement* with qualified women for 10 years -- all hell breaks loose -- public controversy (such as Steve Watson's initial posting) -- faculty backlash within OCA -- meetings, press coverage, infighting on-campus -- irresponsible media coverage including publication of commentary articles when no *news* coverage had been printed -- OCA (backed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission) upholds its decision That's the story. The Ontario College of Art is still hiring men. The hiring for all positions left open by retirement will be limited to women, but all other hiring will be open competition. The college is aiming for 38% female faculty. Here's some opinion, just as a bonus. Do not repeat this information as fact. Say "Linda Carson said..." *Gossip* has it in the fine arts community of Ontario/Canada that, in spite of how unpleasant it will probably be to work at OCA under these conditions, the college has been astonished by the numbers and calibre of qualified women available. If you think about it, OCA (arguably one of the most prestigious art schools in Canada) has hired (net) no women for a decade. The qualified women they passed over ten years ago now have the same excellent credentials *plus* ten year exhibition records. (In the visual arts, your exhibition record is the professional equivalent of papers and publications. Scientists do research; artists make and show art.) It's not even a question of young male art teachers being shut out of job opportunities by *equally* qualified women any more. If OCA could figure out a way to ensure fair hiring, those men would simply be less well-qualified than the women who are also available. OCA has not (after a decade of voluntary effort, sincere or otherwise) been able to ensure fair hiring -- hence the new hiring policy. This is as clear a case in favour of an affirmative action policy as I can imagine. The institution agrees that an abundance of qualified women exist. The institution agrees that women are seriously under-represented on faculty, and that this is unhealthy. The institution endeavours to hire more women, informally, and yet the representation of women on faculty actually drops. It's embarrassing, but clearly the institution finds itself guilty of practicing some sort of discriminatory hiring so systematic that even when it sets out to redress the problem, it worsens. If you believe hiring discrimination is wrong, how else would you go about remedying this situation? Saying "we'll just make sure that the hiring process is fair" *didn't work*. Saying "we'll set a reasonable measure of fairness and state explicitly how we plan achieve it" might. Fact: During the 1970s, the Canadian woman artist Joyce Wieland wrote to the Ontario College of Art twice looking for a teaching appointment. [A painter, film-maker, mixed media and textile sculptor, Wieland is arguably the most illustrious contemporary woman artist in Canada. She became the first woman *ever* to be featured in a retrospective at the prestigious Art Gallery of Ontario.] She did not even receive a reply. Linda Carson Major references: Art College Uproar: Fairness or Folly? by Lynda Hurst, Toronto Star, 21 January 1990 "...there is universal agreement that the college handled the outside announcement of its equity plan with all the finesse of a circus elephant..." New OCA hiring policy reflects old inequities in Canadian workplace, by Bronwyn Drainie, Globe & Mail, 20 January 1990 "You may not agree with the college's decision to fill staff vacancies created by retirement exclusively with women for the next ten years, but it clearly indicates that any voluntary attempt the college has made to be fairer to women has ended in failure."
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/23/90)
In article <9011201819.AA23507@mks.mks.com> (Linda Carson) writes: >The Ontario College of Art is still hiring men. The hiring for all >positions left open by retirement will be limited to women, but all >other hiring will be open competition. The college is aiming for 38% >female faculty. Linda, you wrote this claim at least 3 times in your 194 lines article. What you forgot to tell us is what is the ratio between new positions and positions that were created by retirement. You also forgot to tell us why the young men, who had *no* say in the past discrimination should be punished for that discrimination...
watson@Mitel.Software.COM (Steve Watson) (11/27/90)
In article <9011201819.AA23507@mks.mks.com> mks!linda@watmath.waterloo.EDU (Linda Carson) writes: >The recent vague and ill-informed postings about the Ontario College >of Art's new hiring policies should make everyone question the >accuracy of any affirmative action urban legends they hear. [...] >Perhaps on the basis of reading the headlines rather than the >newspaper articles, Steve Watson (watson@spock.UUCP) said: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't read the Toronto papers. My source was an episode of _The_5th_Estate_ (CBC news-mag TV program), which probably contains more info than a headline, but possibly less than a real article. So, your honour, I plead guilty with an explanation: I believed the CBC (bad move, I know). Mea Culpa. > The target is 38% female > representation. I wrote: >> ....(I may have some details wrong, corrections welcome) So: thank you, Ms. Carson for the corrections! (which I have deleted to save bandwidth) My reaction to them: the policy has reasonable justification and sounds reasonably implemented. EXCEPT, if any of the points you mentioned were shown on the _5th_Estate_, I missed it. Am I deaf & blind? Or did they just do a lousy job on the story? >....This is as clear a case in favour of an affirmative action policy as I >can imagine.... I agree. So, in future, if I have any thing like this to say, I'll try and phrase it a little more like: "I have heard X from source Y. Could anyone near the scene of the action confirm/deny/clarify it?" THEN we can discuss it... -- ====================== disclaimer =============================== Steve Watson Blame me, not the Company I keep... UseNet: watson@Software.Mitel.COM but if that bounces try: mitel!spock!watson@uunet.uu.net
robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (12/02/90)
I apologize in advance for having to include such a large portion of another
posting, but I trimmed it down as much as I could to be fair and maintain
the context.
In article <9011201819.AA23507@mks.mks.com- mks!linda@watmath.waterloo.EDU (Linda Carson) writes:
-Perhaps on the basis of reading the headlines rather than the
-newspaper articles, Steve Watson (watson@spock.UUCP) said:
-
-> Last year the Ontario College of Art instituted a policy according to which
-> teaching vacancies will only be available to WOMEN. This will continue
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- Untrue: only openings created by *retirement*
- will be limited to women.
-
-> until the faculty is 50% women. At current turnover rates, this should
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- The target is 38% female
- representation.
-
-> take 10 or 20 years. (I may have some details wrong, corrections welcome)
- ^^^^^^^^
- Since this policy is based on retirements,
- they can predict quite accurately how long it
- will take to reach the target. They expect
- to be there in a decade (not two).
-
-For people who are concerned about the fairness or unfairness of the
-recent decision at OCA, I have gone to the files to briefly recap the
-story (from articles in the Toronto Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, and
-U.W. Gazette):
-
--- In 1985, OCA internal review concludes that representation of women
- on faculty is unsatisfactory
--- OCA decides to implement an informal, voluntary program of
- increased hiring of women
--- In 1988, OCA reviews its progress: 25% of faculty members are
- female and they teach only 13% of the courses; cost-cutting
- measures had *reduced* full-time female faculty by half over
- a decade
--- OCA has the second-lowest proportion of women faculty of any
- art college in Canada (after Emily Carr in B.C.: 22%)
--- With provincial grant money, OCA does research to check its figures;
- is there some way to account for the decrease? Maybe there aren't
- any quality women artists?
- -- student body includes slightly more women than men
- -- female students graduate and win the majority of the awards
- -- Canada Council grants to artists in the 80s: 40% female
--- OCA concludes, to its own satisfaction, that there *is* a pool of
- well-qualified women available and that OCA has somehow been
- discriminating systematically against hiring them in spite of
- having explicitly set out to reverse existing discrimination
- [Many Ontario universities, colleges and businesses have been
- making similar investigations and establishing their own hiring
- policies in response to human rights legislation that is being
- introduced now and over the next few years. Hiring equity for
- women is the first phase: visible minorities, native peoples and
- the disabled have also been identified as victims of historical
- discrimination.]
--- OCA resolves to set up a *formal* policy of affirmative action,
- since the well-intentioned informal approach was completely ineffective
--- September 1989, OCA sets a 38% target for women on faculty
- and chooses what it initially believes will be the least
- controversial hiring policy -- it will fill only openings created
- by *retirement* with qualified women for 10 years
--- all hell breaks loose
- -- public controversy (such as Steve Watson's initial posting)
- -- faculty backlash within OCA
- -- meetings, press coverage, infighting on-campus
- -- irresponsible media coverage including publication of commentary
- articles when no *news* coverage had been printed
--- OCA (backed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission) upholds its decision
-
-This is as clear a case in favour of an affirmative action policy as I
-can imagine. The institution agrees that an abundance of qualified
-women exist. The institution agrees that women are seriously
-under-represented on faculty, and that this is unhealthy. The
-institution endeavours to hire more women, informally, and yet the
-representation of women on faculty actually drops. It's embarrassing,
-but clearly the institution finds itself guilty of practicing some
-sort of discriminatory hiring so systematic that even when it sets out
-to redress the problem, it worsens.
-
-If you believe hiring discrimination is wrong, how else would you go
-about remedying this situation? Saying "we'll just make sure that the
-hiring process is fair" *didn't work*. Saying "we'll set a reasonable
-measure of fairness and state explicitly how we plan achieve it"
-might.
-
-Fact:
-
-During the 1970s, the Canadian woman artist Joyce Wieland wrote to the
-Ontario College of Art twice looking for a teaching appointment. [A
-painter, film-maker, mixed media and textile sculptor, Wieland is
-arguably the most illustrious contemporary woman artist in Canada. She
-became the first woman *ever* to be featured in a retrospective at the
-prestigious Art Gallery of Ontario.]
-
-She did not even receive a reply.
Thanks for a very informative article. However, I did not see
any justification therein for the program that was put in place. In
fact, given the information you have provided, this case provides an
excellent example of the reason why such programs are fundamentally
*bad*.
There are three essential steps to problem solving. 1.
Identify the problem. 2. Identify the causes of the problem. 3.
Eliminate the causes of the problem.
The approach taken here is akin to someone coming home to find
their basement full of water, then pumping out the water. The symptoms
have been removed, so the problem's fixed, right?
Well, maybe. If it was a one-shot freak situation, then the
problem may never appear again. But what if it wasn't? What if the
forces that caused the swamping are still present?
Ontario College has identified the problem: gender imbalance
inappropriate for the environment. Their solution, however, completely
dodges past the second step--identification of the causes--making the
third step impossible, in favor of fixing the *symptom*. The result?
At the end of one decade, they can expect to have met their goal of
38% representation (with one caveat, which I'll get to in a minute).
However, since they have not ascertained the cause, the forces that
caused the imbalance in the first place may still be present, in which
case we would see a gradual return to the original state occurring
over the *next* ten years.
In fact, they may not reach their goal in the decade they've
given themselves at all. For instance, if the cause of the imbalance
is rampant chauvinism amongst the staff, new female teachers may be
persecuted to the point that they leave before the decade mark. In ten
years time, they may be no better off than before.
The problem is that they have chosen not to identify the
cause, and therefore cannot hope to have chosen a correct solution
except by blind luck.
Some examples of possible reasons for observed phenomena, and
the appropriate solutions ( and I confess I begin with an extremely
unlikely one, but unlikely things happen, and without investigation
the unlikely cannot be discounted):
First, one example was given of a specific case of a woman
artist turned down, Joyce Wieland. She sent two applications, and did
not even receive an answer. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out
why? Did she perhaps mail to the wrong address or the wrong department
or to the attention of the wrong person? ( Solution: Use the right
address. ) Is there the possibility of a professional rivalry or
conflict with a "power" at the college that has nothing whatever to do
with gender issues? ( Solution: determine the more valuable potential
contributor, and hire that one, letting the other one go, or remove
the "power" from the position of power so that Joyce can be judged
fairly. Either way, Joyce would no longer be a fair example for the
more general case. ) Is there a conscious chauvinistic force (person
or persons) who simply ashcan all applications from women? ( Solution:
in the states, criminal action *and* personal lawsuit action. I don't
know about Canada. )
(Note: Joyce's example isn't a particularly fair one, anyway,
since it happened 11-20 years ago. She might well have been snapped up
if she applied last year, but we can't know what the results might
have been. Attitude towards women in the marketplace have changed
drastically and demonstrably since 1970). Furthermore, though she is
clearly qualified now, there is no evidence herein to suggest that she
was qualifed then.
For the more general case: what is the percentage of women
applicants to the college (for teaching positions)? ( Hopefully
someone at least checked *this* question out, and it simply wasn't
reported in this posting ). If the number is significantly below the
estimated percentage of qualified women, why? If the salaries at this
college are low, could it be more lucrative to work at other
positions, which may, through similar programs, be more likely to
accept women? ( For instance, this posting reports that the Canada
Council grants to artists in the 80s were 40% female; it is
potentially possible that that 40% was nearly every woman who applied,
in which case it would be very inviting to go for grants instead of
taking work at a low-paying college ). ( Solution: increase the
salaries for the college, or ignore the problem, since the women
artists are not applying because they are better off not applying).
Could the college have a reputation for refusing women that is no
longer deserved, given their new commitment to hiring women? (
Solution: make loud public noises announcing the "new commitment";
perhaps a letter campaign aimed at women artists, coupled with
advertising, etc. ).
If the number of female applicants accepted is significantly
less than the number hired, why? Can they be shown to be less
qualified than the men hired? ( Which could be the case if, as
mentioned above, the more qualified women had an easy time finding
more lucrative jobs. Solution: no solution required ). Are the
qualifications biased towards men in some way? ( Solution: correct the
qualifications so that they are not biased ).
Is there actually an unconscious discriminatory force (person
or persons) who fail to hire the best candidate if she is a woman? How
do they get away with it? Do the individuals or groups making the
decisions have any accountability for their actions ( for instance,
does the college keep resumes and require the individual or group to
justify where person A is rejected and person B accepted? Are these
justifications reviewed by an unbiased group interested in gender
equality ( such as the group who made the recommendations that the
college is taking instead! ) ( Solution: put such a plan in place,
that might point out those who are unconsciously discriminating. This
has the advantage that if the individual or group is well-meaning but
unconsciously doing this, they may be able to consciously alter their
approach and become fair members of society ).
Is there, in fact, a completely conscious discriminatory force
(person or persons) who is deliberately and with malice aforethought
abusing their power by actively discriminating against female
applicants? ( Solution: Burn them! They are criminals ( at least in
the states ) and deserve punishment, not to mention the importance of
the example of the punishment to others! )
If the percentage of women accepted is appropriate to the
percentage of applicants, is the problem elsewhere? Do the women leave
faster than they arrive? Why? Is there an inequity in the job
assignments that lead current female employees to be unhappy? If so,
who makes those assignments? Is that person or group accountable for
their choices? For example, the 25% of the faculty members teach only
13% of the courses; who makes that decision? Can they justify that
decision? Are the accountable for their choice? ( Solution: make them
accountable ). Who decides who is laid off by the cost-cutting
measures? Can they justify the fact that the percentage of women laid
off was higher than the percentage of women faculty at the college?
Are they accountable for their decisions? ( Solution: make them
accountable! ) Is their an atmosphere of misogyny amongst the faculty
that chases women teachers away? ( Solution: criminal action again! )
These examples range from "there is no problem" to "the
problem is deliberate and malicious misogyny", from highly unlikely to
very possible. Everybody ought to find something somewhere in between
that they can accept as a possibility. In none of the cases would the
appropriate solution be the one the college chose. In fact, in none of
the cases does the solution *ever* have to do with the patently sexist
solution of choosing amongst the applicants by gender instead of by
qualification!
Moreover, the solution addresses the *source* of the problem,
not the symptom. Just for fun, how does the chosen solution affect the
problems described above?
Joyce and wrong address: doesn't help. Joyce and professional
conflict: doesn't help. Joyce and deliberate chauvinism: Joyce gets a
job. However, ten years from now, when the program ends, if the source
of the deliberate chauvinism is still in place, the next Joyce will
not get a job. Joyce may be "persuaded" to leave if the source of the
chauvinism has greater power than just candidate selection.
More lucrative elsewhere: probably will not reach goal in ten
years, as applicants lured away to better prospects. Poor reputation:
may be corrected as a side effect; may still be in place if problem is
chauvinistic atmosphere driving women away. Easily regained if the
problem is a deliberate or unconscious chauvinistic force that is
still in power in ten years.
Applicants less qualified: the less qualified applicants will
definitely be hired over the next ten years. Quality of the school may
drop as a result. Qualifications biased: women will be hired without
regard to the biased qualifications for the next ten years.
Subsequently, the rate of hire will return to it's original low rate.
Unconscious discriminatory force: if the force happens to be
among those retiring or leaving in the ten years time, the problem
will cease. If the force is still in place, it may have been convinced
by example or peer pressure to behave differently. It may, however,
still be in power and still have the same unconscious biases.
Conscious discriminatory force: again, the force may leave
sometime during the next ten years of it's own volition. It may be
convinced to change it's mind. It may still, however, be in power, and
take up where it left off in ten years time. Furthermore, it is not
punished for it's crimes, nor is it made an example for other
discriminatory people.
Inequity in job assignments: doesn't help. Higher percentage
of women laid off: doesn't help. Atmosphere of misogyny: may help by
providing a better gender balance. Hinders by inciting anger amongst
the faculty, who obviously will be unlikely to provide a pleasant
atmosphere for new women faculty members. Atmosphere easily inflamed
by unverifiable charges that new faculty are chosen by gender rather
than qualification. ( Note: the posting did include the following
quote: )
--- all hell breaks loose
- -- faculty backlash within OCA
Actually, I can't even imagine what situation the chosen
solution *would* be the correct solution for.
By choosing to treat the symptom, rather than the roots of the
problem, OCA has made it impossible to guess whether the problem will
be solved at the end of the next ten years. The cost is likely to be
an unpleasant atmosphere amongst the faculty, further fuel for
anti-feminist programs and misogynists, as well as egalitarian types,
an uncertainty as to the real ability of those chosen to qualify, the
complete lack of punishment for any criminal involved, the potential
victimization of completely innocent men, and, above all else, the
very real possibility that the problem won't even be solved.
It's a bad solution.
Robert C.
--
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
bloch%thor@ucsd.EDU (Steve Bloch) (12/08/90)
uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman), discussing OCA's disputed hiring policy, lists a number of possible explanations for the observed problem, with various solutions for them, none of which involves gender-preference in hiring. Then: > Actually, I can't even imagine what situation the chosen >solution *would* be the correct solution for. If you want, I'll give one, more plausible than some of yours and less plausible than others. To wit: the observed gender imbalance is due to a general bias (whether in hiring, promotion, or working relations) among the current faculty, not localized to one or a few members, but stronger among male than among female faculty. If this were the problem, then curing the symptom WOULD be reasonably likely to cure the disease, as more female faculty were brought in, their presence would tend to counteract the general bias (assuming, as seems reasonable, that lacking other information a female job applicant is less likely to be misogynistic than a male one). I don't seriously dispute the other diagnoses and prescriptions Robert gives, I just wanted to complete the list with one that doesn't support his argument. However, one must ask: during the years that an "informal" system was in place at OCA, how many of Robert's solutions were tried and found unsuccessful? -- "The above opinions are my own -- but that's just MY opinion." Stephen Bloch bloch@cs.ucsd.edu