Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!gateway From: uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: AA Urban Legends? (Long!) Message-ID: <1990Nov30.042047.14849@informix.com> Date: 2 Dec 90 06:53:48 GMT References: <9011201819.AA23507@mks.mks.com- Organization: Informix Software, Inc. Lines: 310 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu 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. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com