Negative impact on quality of faculty could result?
Editor:
Dr. Daniels (Philosophy) has suggested in the October issue [Oct. 4] of The Ring that attempts to eliminate discrimination through a statistically-based, preferential hiring plan may in fact backfire, and actually create discrimination. He shows that this has happened in the past to Jewish scholars at North American universities. I would like to add that such a plan might also adversely affect the quality of the faculty. If you don't believe this, read Dr. Daniels' letter and then consider a statistic: Jews make up about one percent of the world's population, but have earned sixteen percent of the Nobel Prizes.
Barry Carlson, Linguistics
Editor:
The thrust of my recent letter to the editor was to illustrate by way of historical example that the Equity Handbook's proposed method of measuring bias and discrimination in our hiring procedures doesn't always work. How well the "racial-religious" (read Jewish) composition of universities mirrored that of society at large proved in the twenties and thirties a poor measure of whether there were or were not biased procedures being used in them. Worse yet, the subsequent efforts by administrators to insure that universities did not mirror society resulted in iniquitous discrimination.
Let me now provide reason to think that this "mirroring" relationship between university departments and society at large is almost never a good measure of bias or discrimination in hiring. The racial, sexual, etc., composition of the pool of minimally qualified candidates for university posts (in most disciplines, those with PhDs and no tenure track jobs) rarely mirrors that of society at large. In most cases, the make-up of the two groups is very different. Departments cannot mirror both. So if the racial, sexual, etc., composition of any group is going to provide a reliable measure of the presence or absence of bias in hiring procedures, the one that counts is the pool of minimally qualified candidates - not society at large!
I suspect, however, that no really helpful information can be gained about bias in hiring by comparing the make-up of a department to that of even its pool of minimally qualified candidates. A university department is just too small a sample to be taken as reliably representative.
Both Deborah Yaffe's and Linda Sproule-Jones's responses to my original letter correctly remind me that there are two sides to all quotas: those they exclude and those they admit. Indeed, in the nineteen twenties and thirties, some American universities did not put quotas on Jews, at least not officially. Instead, they instituted affirmative action, granting special admission to less qualified applicants who came from certain parts of the US, from the sparsely populated rural southern mid-western, and western statesregions that, incidentally, had low percentages of Jewish residents. Whichever side of a quotas it pleases us to dwell upon, the affirmative or the restrictive, the other side is there, whether we wish to be mindful of it or not.
Charles B. Daniels, Department of Philosophy
Future conferences to be more inclusive
Editor:
The 1996 UVic Women's Conference Planning Committee acknowledges that an omission was made by not extending formal invitations to campus groups and organizations who are otherwise marginalized. The Committee extended an apology and invitation to all members of these groups to participate in this year's Conference and share their valuable insights and knowledge.
The Conference Planning Committee should have made a greater effort to seek representation from these groups and not relied on the open invitation issued through campus media or through letters of invitation sent in July 1995 to employee groups, the Graduate Students' Society and the University of Victoria Students' Society.
We regret that anyone has felt excluded from the planning process or from the Conference.
The Conference Planning Committee would welcome the opportunity to work with members from these groups to develop formal Terms of Reference for a Women's Conference at UVic. The Planning Committee will extend invitations to these meetings to the Native Student Union; Women of Colour Collective; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Alliance; Women's Centre, and the Women's Studies Department. The Planning Committee would like to ensure this process is inclusive for everyone at UVic. If anyone is aware of a group or organization who should have representation on this committee, please contact Susan Corner c/o the Student Union Building.
Common Ground: Uncommon People is the third UVic Women's Conference. Individuals from across the University volunteer their time to organize this event. Members of the Planning Committee hope all women on campus will feel future UVic Women's Conferences are inclusive. The conferences should open a channel for dialogue leading to action on issues that should impact on us all.
Members of the Planning Committee, UVic Women's Conference 1996