University job for 'women, transgender, non-binary, or two-spirit' candididates

[dismalist]

nstead of this convoluted list, why not announce that the position excludes men?

Because trans men are men, but may apply.

This raises an interesting question. If someone "self-identifies" as <whatever> to get the job, and then after being hired, changes their "self-identification", can they be fired?

Now, you see, if we had tradable quotas, the person who changed his or her mind would have to sell the quota right he or she owned now and buy a different quota right.

Going from special case to straight white male would cost a pretty penny! :-)

How about dynamic quotas, so as people come and go, different categories are adjusted up or down so that everyone's salaries change? In principle, that would mean as *"under-quota" representatives leave, the salaries of remaining people from that group would go up, so they'd be incentivized to stay. Self-correcting even!!!


(*Or as "over-quota" representatives leave, the salaries of remaining people from that group would go also up, especially if the replacement was from an "under-quota" group.)

Come to think of it, it's actually easier to administer the quota solution by price rather than tradable quantity.

However. let's be clear on the dynamics: The wages of under-quota groups [say, B's and F's] must be raised, to attract such, and those over-quota lowered [say, WM's], to deter such. As the under quota groups fill up, their [higher] wages must go down, as less incentive necessary.

In the quota constrained equilibrium, the wages of the B's and F's will be still be higher than WM's.

But this mechanism just makes transparent what Affirmative Action does. I doubt it would be politically feasible if it were sold this way.

[marshwiggle]

However. let's be clear on the dynamics: The wages of under-quota groups [say, B's and F's] must be raised, to attract such, and those over-quota lowered [say, WM's], to deter such. As the under quota groups fill up, their [higher] wages must go down, as less incentive necessary.

An interesting situation arises with someone from an obscure group where the "quota" would be less than 1. The calculated salary before hiring would be higher than what the person would get once hired, since once hired the group would be "over-quota".

Also, as places hire more employees from the same "under-quota" groups, the existing members of those groups will see their wages go down, which will breed some resentment. So everyone will prefer being the unique member of whatever group they belong to. (Come to think of it, combating tribalism may be a bonus of this system.)

[dismalist]

However. let's be clear on the dynamics: The wages of under-quota groups [say, B's and F's] must be raised, to attract such, and those over-quota lowered [say, WM's], to deter such. As the under quota groups fill up, their [higher] wages must go down, as less incentive necessary.

An interesting situation arises with someone from an obscure group where the "quota" would be less than 1. The calculated salary before hiring would be higher than what the person would get once hired, since once hired the group would be "over-quota".

Also, as places hire more employees from the same "under-quota" groups, the existing members of those groups will see their wages go down, which will breed some resentment. So everyone will prefer being the unique member of whatever group they belong to. (Come to think of it, combating tribalism may be a bonus of this system.)

Note also that the concept of quality appears nowhere. One can approach or fill the quota if one ignores quality, but not if quality matters. One can't have both high wages and high quality together, at least not in finite time.

This perhaps helps explain why there is so much of the "expand group X's employment" attitude at universities. There are subjects in universities where quality doesn't matter. [They will remain nameless.] One might have thought engineering is different -- people notice if your bridges fall down -- but then again, it's environmental engineering. :-(

[Anon1787]

OK, then it's about requiring a school to hire more French-speaking people in order to reflect the francophone level of the population overall.

It's not my job as an academic to represent any particular group. I'd run for political office if I wanted a job representing people. But if it is I deserve a pay raise for doing 2 jobs!

[kaysixteen]

Obviously it appears that Canadian law seems to be different in this regard, but unless I err greatly, this sort of job ad would be just plain illegal in the US, esp at any tax-supported institution.   Add that to the fact that the job in question is some sort of environmental engineering position, where membership in any specific demographic would be irrelevant, and you get 'unacceptable'.   After all, if the ad had said: 'this posting is only open to white male cisgendered heterosexuals', well...

[marshwiggle]

How about dynamic quotas, so as people come and go, different categories are adjusted up or down so that everyone's salaries change? In principle, that would mean as *"under-quota" representatives leave, the salaries of remaining people from that group would go up, so they'd be incentivized to stay. Self-correcting even!!!


(*Or as "over-quota" representatives leave, the salaries of remaining people from that group would go also up, especially if the replacement was from an "under-quota" group.)

Come to think of it, it's actually easier to administer the quota solution by price rather than tradable quantity.

However. let's be clear on the dynamics: The wages of under-quota groups [say, B's and F's] must be raised, to attract such, and those over-quota lowered [say, WM's], to deter such. As the under quota groups fill up, their [higher] wages must go down, as less incentive necessary.

In the quota constrained equilibrium, the wages of the B's and F's will be still be higher than WM's.

But this mechanism just makes transparent what Affirmative Action does. I doubt it would be politically feasible if it were sold this way.

An idea just occurred to me of how this could be used to exclude exactly the people it's meant to include. A candidate in an "under-quota" group could be turned into an "over-quota" candidate by adding more characteristics. For instance, if a candidate was "under-quota" as black and trans, but also disabled, then that would probably be "over-quota" for BTD. One could add filters for age, marital status, handedness, and an endless array of other characteristics, (The point is of course that people are all individuals, and they don't primarily exist as members of groups, so it's pretty easy to give a list of characteristics that uniquely defines any specific individual.)

[mythbuster]

We are running a late in the year search right now. Our slate for phone interviews was rejected by the admins for the lack of men. So we dug through the list and added one to the interview schedule. Therefore, I wonder- if there are no trans or male two spirit applicants, would this be rejected for lack of male to female diversity?

[Hibush]

Obviously it appears that Canadian law seems to be different in this regard, but unless I err greatly, this sort of job ad would be just plain illegal in the US, esp at any tax-supported institution.   Add that to the fact that the job in question is some sort of environmental engineering position, where membership in any specific demographic would be irrelevant, and you get 'unacceptable'.   After all, if the ad had said: 'this posting is only open to white male cisgendered heterosexuals', well...

In Florida, I think faculty are now precluded from mentioning the job ad at all.