Gender/race.social economic group quotas?

steddyeddy

I realise this could be a divisive thread so I will thread carefully here. Should we have gender quotas in jobs, academic positions and research opportunities?

I was at a talk today giving advice to people applying for research programmes in science. One of the new questions asked is "Outline the Biological gender role in your research". Now that's fair enough they're simply asking does your research benefit one gender more than another. Then they started talking about filling gender quotas when funding science and engineering projects. The current heads of the board are rejecting pressure to do this as they rightly consider it ludicrous.

That to me is absolutely nuts as these things should be funded solely on merit and not what sex/race/socio economic group you belong to. Now I always stand in the corner for disadvantaged groups and I think they should be given every chance to get to college to counter balance the help that relatively privileged students get in getting to college. What I disagree with is setting up quotos in jobs and PhD positions.

I hate to say it but If you graduated college and you can't get funding, can't get a certain job that's not the fault of your gender, social grouping or economic status of birth. I think quotas are a very very bad thing in science. I have next to no clue about other disciplines so maybe someone could enlighten me with their opinion in quotas in other walks of life?

Dravokivich

steddyeddy wrote: »

Should we have gender quotas in jobs, academic positions and research opportunities?

No, it's inequality. Equality is not about even representation of any grouping of people based on Gender, Race, Economic status or whatever. Equality is about neither of those things which segregate us as individuals/groups being used against us.

Grayson

There should be quotas when interviewing. If you're interviewing for a position and you're in say Alabama, you should make sure to have 50-50 white/black candidates.

Hiring because of colour isn't smart. You aren't guaranteed the right candidate. However if you make sure the group you're interviewing from is correctly balanced, then it should work out in the end.

Sometimes, it depends on the intent of the quota - i.e. to correct an existing prejudicial imbalance.

Quota's would almost certainly have been necessary in post civil-equality Alabama, post-apartheid South Africa etc. As a support to necessary social change they can be a useful tool.

Quotas for applicants from more challenging backgrounds into further education isn't something I would object to if the existing demographic analysis displayed a disproportional imbalance in favour of those from more traditionally privileged backgrounds, all else being equal.

Montroseee

The best candidate should get the position, nothing else besides their suitability and eligibility should matter.

Links234

I can understand why it's a thing, there's things like politics where cronyism, nepotism run rife and things can be a bit of an old boy's club, but it's pretty much a ****ty solution to a ****ty situation.

Montroseee wrote: »

The best candidate should get the position, nothing else besides their suitability and eligibility should matter.

This assumes an equal playing field, plenty of best candidates mightn't get their foot in the door in some fields.

DoYouEvenLift

Montroseee wrote: »

The best candidate should get the position, nothing else besides their suitability and eligibility should matter.

100% this. Especially so in the government. This stuff about trying to have an even split with male and female politicians is ridiculous as enforcing such a requirement could possibly result in more suitable and educated candidates being left out. If we had a 90% male and 10% female or a 90% female and 10% male government it would not matter as long as we have total confidence that it was a result of the absolute best candidates for the positions getting it due to their credentials and not what gender they are.

Adamantium

steddyeddy wrote: »

I realise this could be a divisive thread so I will thread carefully here.

Hello there, I'm a regular Boards.ie user; how may I be professionally offended by you today good sir?

Venus In Furs

If there are particular groups under-represented in various arenas, encouraging them to become involved (if they want to) seems more fruitful in my opinion than an artifical construct like a quota, which to me is just tokenism and the equivalent of just slapping a band-aid on the issue.

steddyeddy

But I'm talking about college graduates and graduate positions. Help people get to college fair enough but once you're qualified then it's up to you on your own merit.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

But I'm talking about college graduates and graduate positions. Help people get to college fair enough but once you're qualified then it's up to you on your own merit.

I've never been a fan of positive discrimination nor quotas of any sort really. I don't think it's a good idea to introduce those kinds of policies as recent events regarding gender equality in science have shown us that quotas can create an atmosphere where someone is perceived not to have attained their position on merit, but by virtue of the fact that they were a particular gender/ethnicity/socially disadvantaged, etc.

I'm more in favour of a system where we encourage everyone, and help everyone regardless of their meeting specific politically motivated criteria. I've heard enough of the "she slept her way to the top" or "he only got the job to even out the numbers" to last me a lifetime, and it's something I would very much disapprove of wherever I encounter that sort of discrimination or differentiation.

P. Breathnach

Montroseee wrote: »

The best candidate should get the position, nothing else besides their suitability and eligibility should matter.

But how can we assure that it happens? Because those who decide who is to get the position might get it wrong unless there are systems in place to counter conscious or unconscious bias.

There is strong evidence that a major Irish academic institution was recently unable to operate fair procedures: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/nui-galway-ordered-to-promote-lecturer-overlooked-over-gender-1.2004689.

RobYourBuilder

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But how can we assure that it happens? Because those who decide who is to get the position might get it wrong unless there are systems in place to counter conscious or unconscious bias.

There is strong evidence that a major Irish academic institution was recently unable to operate fair procedures: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/nui-galway-ordered-to-promote-lecturer-overlooked-over-gender-1.2004689.

That's what the Equality Tribunal is there for. To investigate and address such incidents.

biko

Montroseee wrote: »

The best candidate should get the position, nothing else besides their suitability and eligibility should matter.

Although I agree fully, unfortunately this only works on paper.

P. Breathnach

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

That's what the Equality Tribunal is there for. To investigate and address such incidents.

Yes, and it's a worthwhile institution.

But if things worked properly in the first place, we would have no need for remedial action.

jank

Look up some of the history of positive discrimination..... oh sorry affirmative action in the United States. The results are mixed at best and most states have dropped it e.g. California. It doesn't really work and causes other issues down the line.

Jester252

Nothing says equality like hiring hard working people based on gender and race.

strobe

I demand gender quotas, age quotas, race quotas, socio-economic quotas, height quotas, sexual attractiveness quotas, disability quotas, and anything else I could be somehow missing out. Any time any position of any kind is advertised and an ugly, black, 3ft 8, one legged, bisexual, 63 year old Jew from Moyross isn't interviewed the people responsible should be clamped in stocks so we can pelt them with rotten fruit in the town square to show them up for the prejudiced cowards they are.