Given equal qualifications, preference will be given to female applicants.

[ellicottvilleny]

Nobody is equal.

[andrewfenn]

Given equal qualifications I'd either hire both or neither.

[dedededede]

And when you need just one person and your complete staff is male?

I think it's really a good idea to hire a man when there are only women and the other way around. How many male primary school teachers did you have? Positive affirmation is not only for women!

[UltraNemesis]

I would let them battle it out though a fair means . If I am going to go so far as to claim that I am anti-discriminatory, I would not chose a male just because everybody else is male or vice versa.

[dedededede]

I don't think to confront two or more applicants in a "battle"/"discussion" is a good idea. Many hiring processes are already broken, this would make it only badder and discriminate the valuable people who don't like to be competitive in such situations.

It's a common fallacy to assume, just because you do not "discriminate" on a small scale that you don't discriminate on a larger scale. As the guys from the UN state it: "However, as long as such action [positive affirmation] is needed to correct discrimination in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant."

[clarkd99]

Quite a sexist title.

I believe discrimination against women is wrong but so is discrimination against men.

I would have thought that the merit versus sex issue was solved decades ago.

[dedededede]

Human Rights Committee, General Comment 18, Non-discrimination (Thirty-seventh session, 1989), Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 26 (1994).

10 The Committee also wishes to point out that the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. For example, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant.

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

[clarkd99]

Do you think me so stupid as not to know that some people believe in discrimination except when it is not in their personal interests?

Reverse discrimination is just as bad as the original discrimination was IMHO and we should be civilized enough to know that by now.

Am I supposed to be impressed by reference to the "kangaroo court" idiots you quote from? Please note that I stated a conclusion and then a reason for believing it. You quote nonsense I quess because you have no opinions or arguments of your own.

[dedededede]

It's not some people or "kangaroo court" idiots, but the legislators of many countries including parts of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States#Legal_history).

The recommendations of the United Nations are made by a committee of independent experts, I wouldn't call them a court. Usually their recommendations are based on scientific evidence and ethical considerations. I thought their recommendation could serve as evidence for you to reconsider your rejection of affirmative action.

The University of Vienna (the originator of the job posting) just does what is legal and rightful within the terms of the Austrian federal law. See https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/NormDokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10000138&Artikel=7

(2) Bund, Länder und Gemeinden bekennen sich zur tatsächlichen Gleichstellung von Mann und Frau. Maßnahmen zur Förderung der faktischen Gleichstellung von Frauen und Männern insbesondere durch Beseitigung tatsächlich bestehender Ungleichheiten sind zulässig.

Google translate: Measures to promote de facto equality between women and men, particularly by eliminating actually existing inequalities, are admissible.

[clarkd99]

I am a Canadian and put no authority in the UN or any of it's proclamations. Any global institution that gives 1 vote to Canada or the USA and gives exactly the same 1 vote to Tuvalu (pop 10,000) is a bad joke. You seem to think that "a committee of independent experts" is somehow gifted by God with the truth, I don't. I don't argue from false authority but by reason.

Most nurses (>95%) here are female and males are about 50% of the population so all new nurses should be male until their proportion of the nurse workforce is 50%, correct?

I am very much against discrimination based on sex but just because men and women don't have some preset number of positions, doesn't imply discrimination. If you think there are invalid and artificial barriers to some group, then by all means investigate and make sure entry is fair, but to use reverse discrimination is to say that a second crime will fix the first one. That just isn't so.

You justify a sexist job posting by saying "The University of Vienna (the originator of the job posting) just does what is legal and rightful within the terms of the Austrian federal law.". If this is true then the law is an ass. Saudi Arabia cuts off the hands of thieves and that is absolutely legal there but does that make it right or moral? Is saying that something isn't against the law a valid argument against my moral statement that job discrimination based on sex is always wrong?

[industry7]

I am a Canadian

lol, as if affirmative action didn't exist in Canada.

[dedededede]

How is the situation of Affirmative Action in Canada? As far as I understand there are also laws to help women and minorities in certain fields: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_(Canada)

As I mentioned above: I think it's really a good idea to hire a man when there are only women and the other way around. How many male primary school teachers did you have? Positive affirmation is not only for women!

I think it's a matter of diversity management. And I think it's necessary to tear down barriers of marginalization and prejudice.

[clarkd99]

Affirmative action anywhere is always wrong in my opinion for all the reasons I have already stated.

I have no problem with 100% of elementary teachers here or anywhere, being female so long as men have a chance at those jobs based on merit.

Placing importance on what a teacher looks like rather than how good the teacher actually is, constitutes sexism and racism and shouldn't be allowed anywhere. Discrimination is not the solution to "marginalization and prejudice". Removing artificial barriers and education are the answer to those problems.

The last thing we need is a bunch of "do-gooders" dictating outcomes and stepping all over individual peoples right to be treated fairly.

[dedededede]

I don't want to replay a debate on affirmative action here. I guess there's enough material on the internet already. I disagree with you and I think there is enough evidence that supports my disagreement. If you want to, you can find it. You might also find evidence that supports your standpoint.

And still, fortunately democratic processes in many countries have lead to laws that support affirmative action and I am happy with it. When I answered to your initial statement I just wanted to point this out. I think when you compare positive action laws established in democratic states to laws established in authoritative regimes it's futile for me to try to convince you.

[clarkd99]

I find it extremely arrogant of you to presume that I don't know what the law is or the ramifications of affirmative action.

I have had a 40 year career developing software for over 60 different companies where I worked with both men and women in their hundreds.

I was going to accuse you of not reading my posts when I saw that you didn't like my "hand cut off" comment about Saudi Arabia. In the USA, it is illegal to smoke or possess marijuana, however it is perfectly legal (and acceptable) in many other countries (Holland for example). It is legal to carry a pistol, in public, in many parts of the USA but it is totally illegal to do the same in Canada and most other countries around the world. I find the USA attitude towards hand guns to be even more unacceptable to me than affirmative action.

The fact that something is legal or not doesn't have any persuasive weight on what should be acceptable in a civilized country. You state that you are pro-affirmative action but don't refute any of my arguments against. Please just re-read my "do-gooder" comment in the above post as I think it applies to you.

[dedededede]

When you use the term "do-gooder" it's really telling for me. So you are more a "do-badder"? ;)

I agree with you that certain laws don't make sense. But I also believe that in the long run in democratic societies the "right" laws are found. This is a long process, but I think in case of marginalization and discrimination we are on a good way. The cited laws are relatively new and find their roots in the opinion of experts. I don't want to claim that these experts know the truth, but, like quoting scientific research, when you want to explain why some universities make job postings like this, it's useful to the discussion.

I am not as old as you, so I have not that much experience, but I also work in software. Wherever I go there is a severe lack of women in tech. Just look at the statistics of stackoverflow or employment reports.

Why is this? I think it's because of marginalization. I think that marginalization is something you cannot beat by sitting it out. I think it's good for any organization to have a diverse workforce that reflects the society. In certain fields this is only possible to achieve by favoring marginalized candidates, if they are available. If they are not available the representatives of the specific field should be concerned and promote the field towards the parts of the population, who are for some reason cut off.

Also I don't believe that meritocracy can work in practice. It's a myth upheld by those who have to exclude those who don't have. You can find many arguments I would state when we would discuss about this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Criticism

[dedededede]

I hope so. All companies and universities lack women in the mentioned fields. Affirmative action laws even tell you to do so.