NUIG agrees to gender taskforce recommendations

MathDebater

The Irish Times wrote:

NUI Galway (NUIG)’s governing authority has welcomed the recommendations published by a gender equality taskforce on Tuesday and has committed to implementing them as a matter of urgency.

However, the university’s Siptu branch has reiterated its call for an “external, independent review” of its gender policies, saying that the “credibility of the taskforce is still in question”.

The chairwoman of the governing authority, Judge Catherine McGuinness, said it accepted the four initial recommendations of the taskforce, namely the establishment of a new position of vice-president of equality and diversity; women holding 40 per cent of positions on management committees by the end of 2016; the roll out of “mandatory unconscious bias training” this year; and a review of promotion and career development policies.

The judge said that “the university is fully committed to achieving equality for all staff, irrespective of gender” and that the governing authority’s acceptance of the recommendations was “a strong confirmation of the commitment we have here at NUI Galway to eliminate gender inequality”.

Siptu response

However, Maggie Ronayne, Siptu academic staff stewards committee spokeswoman, said that staff did not believe the taskforce was independent due to its composition and the manner in which it was set up, without consultation with the trade unions.

She said Siptu would meet to consider a formal response but from her viewpoint “there is very little in this for the vast majority of women”.

She said that there were a number of cases of women on the “wrong grade”, or otherwise disadvantaged because of their gender. She also noted that the taskforce’s mandate did not extend to looking at “historical cases”.

The Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT) said it broadly welcomed the report, in that it indicated that NUIG was addressing the issue of gender discrimination.

However, IFUT urged the college to find a mechanism to include the staff and trade unions in the solution.

The taskforce was set up by NUIG in response to last year’s Equality Tribunalruling which found that botanist Dr Micheline Sheehy Skeffington had been discriminated against in a 2008-09 promotion round.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/nuig-agrees-to-gender-taskforce-recommendations-1.2260404

Addressing concerns

At a meeting today, the NUIG governing authority also committed to:

■Establishing the position of a new vice president of equality and diversity, who will initially focus on gender equality,

■Ensuring all major influential committees are comprised of a minimum of 40% women and 40% men by the end of 2016,

■Allowing an external expert to reviews its promotion and progression policies for all grades of staff.

I'm all for equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome and definitely not quotas. Fighting discrimination with 'positive discrimination', an oxymoron in itself, is not the way to go about forcing change.

NUI GALWAY IS to introduce training to address “unconscious gender bias” among staff members, its governing authority has confirmed.

The training will be mandatory for all senior management staff, including heads of schools, committee chairs and heads of interview boards.

Participants in the training will learn to “recognise their own biases [to help them] make better and more rational decisions”, a report endorsed by the university’s board said.

Even if no subconscious bias exist, they will invent one and root it out. Mad stuff.

“Having more women in senior positions within an organisation improves the quality of decision making and diversity also enhances creativity and innovation which are at the heart of university business,” she said.

No citations offered to back up this statement, of course. This type of identity politics that calls for positive discrimination and 'equality quotas' is quickly creeping in from across the Atlantic. Which is worrying as it's toxic.

Muckracker

I thought feminists wanted equality not special treatment?

Sheep Lover

How about just hiring suitable qualified people and not hire because of a specific gender...

RedemptionZ

Yes let's not pick people on their merits but rather on the basis of their gender. This is the way forward right guys? Idiotic idea that will probably be enforced.

PARlance

In before the Alcohol v Weed brigade

looksee

It really annoys me (as a woman) the whole 'positive discrimination' and mandatory percentages of women on committees stuff.

I do agree that there is quite likely gender inequality going on, some awareness training could be good (though the die-hards won't be influenced by it) and there may well be unfair appointment situations that could be revisited. But appointments should be on merit regardless of gender (sex?).

crockholm

I suppose if this sort of numbskullery was to be implemented anywhere,Galway would be the place

Dan_Solo

Because "positive discrimination" doesn't have the word "discrimination" in it.
Um. Yeah.

FortySeven

Only a woman (or a man trying to get a blowjob from said woman) could think this kind of crazy muck up.

There are women in positions of power everywhere, the glass ceiling was shattered years ago. Why can't they just leave well alone?

Meritocracy please, in ALL walks of life.

What doctor jimbob said

Am against quotas

Clandestine

"The university is fully committed to achieving equality for all staff, irrespective of gender”

If thats the case, why accept any of their recommendations? They should have refused them all.

No_Comply

Maybe if we ignore them they'll just go away. The muppets who dream up this kind of idiocy seem to crave attention more than anything.

Clandestine

“mandatory unconscious bias training”

This is some MK Ultra/brainwashing s***. What the f***

FortySeven

“mandatory unconscious bias training”

Really? :eek:

anncoates

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This should be good.

Anybody for New Account bingo?

anncoates

Clandestine wrote: »

“mandatory unconscious bias training”

For Forks Sake

This is the first and probably only time that I think somebody from SIPTU is right about something.



*shudders*

Grayson

In the last team I worked in there was one female. She'd been in the team for 10 years. The other 7 were guys. They made no effort to hire women.

On the flip side there was a huge department of nearly 200 where easily 90% of management were women. There were loads of guys applying for positions there but for over 3 years all promotions went to women. The Manager and assistant manager and senior managers were women. Most of the supervisors were women who were their friends.
I don't know if it was a conscious effort not to hire men or simply the fact that the women hired other women they were comfortable with. It might also be because there was a special initiative to help women where they were mentored. Men didn't have that option.

I will say that a gender bias, either subconscious or conscious, does exist. It affects both genders. You need to have complete transparency in hiring. You need to make sure there's no huge disparity in the numbers of either gender.

FortySeven

Grayson wrote: »

In the last team I worked in there was one female. She'd been in the team for 10 years. The other 7 were guys. They made no effort to hire women.

On the flip side there was a huge department of nearly 200 where easily 90% of management were women. There were loads of guys applying for positions there but for over 3 years all promotions went to women. The Manager and assistant manager and senior managers were women. Most of the supervisors were women who were their friends.
I don't know if it was a conscious effort not to hire men or simply the fact that the women hired other women they were comfortable with. It might also be because there was a special initiative to help women where they were mentored. Men didn't have that option.

I will say that a gender bias, either subconscious or conscious, does exist. It affects both genders. You need to have complete transparency in hiring. You need to make sure there's no huge disparity in the numbers of either gender.

Easy solution, no names on CVs and get in a Hermaphrodite for interviewing.
Job done.

Grayson

FortySeven wrote: »

Easy solution, no names on CVs and get in a Hermaphrodite for interviewing.
Job done.

Good idea

For Forks Sake

FortySeven wrote: »

Easy solution, no names on CVs and get in a Hermaphrodite for interviewing.
Job done.

I'm fairly certain that's how they decide the winner of the Mercury music prize as well.

nokia69

Clandestine wrote: »

“mandatory unconscious bias training”

This is some MK Ultra/brainwashing s***. What the f***

yeah

and all you can do about it is sit there and keep your mouth shut because, if anyone even tries to point out the BS and the lies you will do serious damage to your career prospects

video below of one of these training sessions

MathDebater

WTF is that, Nokia?

nokia69

MathDebater wrote: »

WTF is that, Nokia?

a man apologising for the sin of being white and male

its what all social justice warriors want

MathDebater

nokia69 wrote: »

a man apologising for the sin of being white and male

its what all social justice warriors want

Yeah, unlike those poor souls afflicted with white guilt I don't feel bad or guilty about historical injustices that I had no part in as an individual.

P. Breathnach

So it's somehow wrong for NUIG to adopt measures designed to improve gender equity? Should they revert to the status quo ante? As exemplified in these recent cases?
http://www.thejournal.ie/nui-galway-lecturer-discrimination-1521678-Jun2014/
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1117/660112-nuig/

nokia69

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So it's somehow wrong for NUIG to adopt measures designed to improve gender equity?

if it means that they hand out jobs or promotions based only on gender then yes it is wrong

everyone should have a fair and equal chance of a job, quotas are just not fair

Dirty Dingus McGee

Grayson wrote: »

In the last team I worked in there was one female. She'd been in the team for 10 years. The other 7 were guys. They made no effort to hire women.

On the flip side there was a huge department of nearly 200 where easily 90% of management were women. There were loads of guys applying for positions there but for over 3 years all promotions went to women. The Manager and assistant manager and senior managers were women. Most of the supervisors were women who were their friends.
I don't know if it was a conscious effort not to hire men or simply the fact that the women hired other women they were comfortable with. It might also be because there was a special initiative to help women where they were mentored. Men didn't have that option.

I will say that a gender bias, either subconscious or conscious, does exist. It affects both genders. You need to have complete transparency in hiring. You need to make sure there's no huge disparity in the numbers of either gender.

On one of the teams I deal with on the floor below me there are 7 members and 1 of them is male.

A few months ago the team leader (who happened to be a woman)was replaced by another woman and the person who is her boss is also a woman (surprise, surpise).

To be honest having read you post I'm thinking of going to HR and complaining about the clear gender bias in that team because clearly these people weren't selected for their jobs on merit they were chosen because of their gender.Of course the HR manager is also a woman so I can't imagine my complaints will get anywhere becaus there is claearly just a massive conspiracy agains men in that deaprtment as claearly it's not possible for that many women to actually be more suitable for a job than men.(Oh and by the way I'm being sarcastic)

nokia69

don't hold your breath waiting for gender balance in places like HR

desertcircus

This is a remarkably high number of posts from people who think sexism is something that affects men rather than women. And there's a derogatory reference to social justice warriors as well. Did it really not occur to any of you that quotas are used to combat more deep-seated and hidden structural inequalities? Or that the quota system being mentioned still means a randomly selected board member will be 50% more likely to be a man than a woman?

Did it even occur to any of you that there might be a reason why a major organisation is doing this; that there might be a legitimate reason for them to look into this?

nokia69

desertcircus wrote: »

Did it really not occur to any of you that quotas are used to combat more deep-seated and hidden structural inequalities

when will we see quotas for men

Eugene Norman

MathDebater wrote: »

Yeah, unlike those poor souls afflicted with white guilt I don't feel bad or guilty about historical injustices that I had no part in as an individual.

The vast majority of whites in Ireland were oppressed for reasons of nationality, religion or class for centuries. In fact most people had no rights anywhere.

desertcircus

nokia69 wrote: »

when will we see quotas for men

We need them???

nokia69

desertcircus wrote: »

We need them???

well if you think that gender balance is a good thing

or is it only a good thing when you want a quota to help women

so much for equality

Dan_Solo

desertcircus wrote: »

This is a remarkably high number of posts from people who think sexism is something that affects men rather than women.

When a rule is being introduced into the workplace that could mean more qualified candidates are denied positions based on their gender, I don't think it's all that amazing that a remarkably high number of people recognise this as sexist.
Sorta because it is.

wp_rathead

I'm split on this
I don't deny that there probably is bit of bias - but quotas don't really sit easy with me either

This seems like a snap move in reaction to the horrible interviews they held with women candidates where they questioned them about their "menstrual cycle"- and was rightly condemned

"Gender equality", my hole.

If a man can prove that he missed out on an opportunity because of his gender due to these quotas, then can he sue for sexism or does it only count when women are discriminated against?

Dan_Solo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So it's somehow wrong for NUIG to adopt measures designed to improve gender equity? Should they revert to the status quo ante? As exemplified in these recent cases?
http://www.thejournal.ie/nui-galway-lecturer-discrimination-1521678-Jun2014/
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1117/660112-nuig/

Why aren't feminist campaigners insisting on clear and transparently equal hiring/promotion procedure instead of quotas?
I guess that's the difference between a feminist (women > men) and an equalist (women = men).

False dichotomy BTW. Should we return to cave dwelling and uncooked food instead of implementing this sexist workplace practice? How about we do neither as they're both a bit ****?

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

"Gender equality", my hole.

If a man can prove that he missed out on an opportunity because of his gender due to these quotas, then can he sue for sexism or does it only count when women are discriminated against?

That'll be a laugh when it's proved in court that their anti-discrimination rules are discriminatory...

orubiru

desertcircus wrote: »

This is a remarkably high number of posts from people who think sexism is something that affects men rather than women. And there's a derogatory reference to social justice warriors as well. Did it really not occur to any of you that quotas are used to combat more deep-seated and hidden structural inequalities? Or that the quota system being mentioned still means a randomly selected board member will be 50% more likely to be a man than a woman?

Did it even occur to any of you that there might be a reason why a major organisation is doing this; that there might be a legitimate reason for them to look into this?

You must understand that a quota system in inherently sexist though?

A company has a 40% quota for women in a certain role. Right now they have 6 men and 3 women and 1 vacant position.

They have 1,000 applicants for the vacant position. 999 men and 1 woman. Should they even bother to do interviews?

You are right that there have been historical inequalities. You are right that there is a legitimate reason to investigate possible gender bias within their organization.

You are wrong to think that enforcing quotas is a good way to combat these problems.

It seems more like an effort to "make amends" for historical inequality to be honest. I am not sure that it's fair to punish the current generation based on the "mistakes" of the generation before them. Especially not when the historical reality may have been that women simply would rather leave the workforce to raise children than become managers etc.

For example, my mother left work at 25 to raise three kids and didn't return to the workforce until she was 43. So her male colleagues would have had an extra 18 years of career development. That one management (or whatever) role she COULD have held is most likely now held by a man. Is it now fair that a mothers son or grandson will be denied a management position to redress the imbalance that she may have unintentionally created?

c_man

I think the best thing is to keep the head down and say nothing.

Dan_Solo

c_man wrote: »

I think the best thing is to keep the head down and say nothing.

If you're a woman! Then you can just sit back and wait for the job offers to roll in as they have quotas to meet!

suicide_circus

Clandestine wrote: »

“mandatory unconscious bias training”

This is some MK Ultra/brainwashing s***. What the f***

I attended "equality and diversity" training in work last year provided by some cynical shìtehawk charging the company some obscene fee. Lots of powerpoint slides of stock photos of black/hispanic/asian/arab people having a great laugh together etc. Cringeworthy. And a meaningless boxticking exercise on the part of the company.

padd b1975

nokia69 wrote: »

don't hold your breath waiting for gender balance in places like HR

Or any occupation that involves a hint of danger or manual labour.

keano_afc

I'm confused. Are we not now living in a society that tells us gender is down to personal preference? Can't men/women identify whatever way they want now? I dont understand how gender quotas are relevant. /sarcasm

c_man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If you're a woman! Then you can just sit back and wait for the job offers to roll in as they have quotas to meet!

As a liberal, progressive man I'm gonna focus on marrying one of these women who's in line for the high paying jobs.

SeanW

Muckracker wrote: »

I thought feminists wanted equality not special treatment?

Feminism is about those to whom the stem word "fem" apply. No-one else. As of the turn of the millennium, feminism and equality are mutually exclusive concepts.

desertcircus

desertcircus wrote: »

This is a remarkably high number of posts from people who think sexism is something that affects men rather than women. And there's a derogatory reference to social justice warriors as well. Did it really not occur to any of you that quotas are used to combat more deep-seated and hidden structural inequalities? Or that the quota system being mentioned still means a randomly selected board member will be 50% more likely to be a man than a woman?

Did it even occur to any of you that there might be a reason why a major organisation is doing this; that there might be a legitimate reason for them to look into this?

I think it'll undermine women.
You only got this job cos you're a woman not cos you earned it
Etc

desertcircus

Dan_Solo wrote: »

When a rule is being introduced into the workplace that could mean more qualified candidates are denied positions based on their gender, I don't think it's all that amazing that a remarkably high number of people recognise this as sexist.
Sorta because it is.

As opposed to the massive structural issues that create a situation whereby a university evidently has twice as many men as women in senior positions, such that 40% female representation would be an improvement? That doesn't count as sexist? We're just going to pretend that quotas are the problem and not bother dealing with the fact that they're simply an imperfect attempt to correct for a much bigger problem?

And I cannot emphasise this enough: under the proposed model, men will still outnumber women in those senior positions by three to two. This isn't about trying to screw men over: this is about trying to avoid screwing women over.

One of the other ways this can be done, incidentally, is by educating interviewers and hirers to recognise the biases and prejudices they unknowingly bring to the table, so that future generations of women get a fairer shot at ascending the ladder (and hopefully, quotas become unnecessary). But NUIG are doing that, and it's getting exactly the same frothing-at-the-mouth treatment here. What the hell do you people want? Do you think a world where two-thirds of senior positions go to men is a fair one? If not, then what the hell else do you propose we do about it?

suicide_circus

There is ample equality legislation in place in this country. There are more men in senior positions for one very simple reason. Women sometimes have babies. And when they have babies they leave work for extended periods and thus are out of the loop and miss out on opportunities. A solution to this would be to strengthen paternal leave rights for men so they can be freed up to be home with the kids.

desertcircus

suicide_circus wrote: »

There is ample equality legislation in place in this country. There are more men in senior positions for one very simple reason. Women sometimes have babies. And when they have babies they leave work for extended periods and thus are out of the loop and miss out on opportunities. A solution to this would be to extend paternal leave rights to men so they can be freed up to be home with the kids.

Except NUIG don't control the law on parental leave. And NUIG, for anyone who didn't read the article, set this committee up after they lost a discrimination case against a female academic who was passed over for promotion. And another five female academics are in legal proceedings against NUIG for exactly the same thing.