next »

[embitteredhistorian]

This question is mostly for people who have been on search committees:

What criteria are inappropriate to consider when hiring a new faculty member?

There are obvious legal restrictions against discriminating according to race, creed, or gender, but then there are legal forms of discrimination that I would consider unethical, such as discriminating according to sexual preference, age, marital status, or nationality. I am also against nepotism, such as giving preference to a faculty member's spouse or close friend, and I was surprised to find in a thread from a couple months ago that many people disagree with me. (I also want to mention that I have never, as far as I know, been rejected for a job that went to a faculty member's spouse or friend, although I have seen it happen to other people a few times.)

However, I'm not interested in just pre-existing personal relationships--are there other criteria that you do or don't consider? Do you take into account socio-economic status? Clothing? Age? Time away from academia? Hobbies? Ties to the community? How heavily do these weigh in your decision in comparison to things such as publications, teaching experience, and the prestige of the candidate's alma mater?

[madhatter]

There are obvious legal restrictions against discriminating according to race, creed, or gender, but then there are legal forms of discrimination that I would consider unethical, such as discriminating according to sexual preference, age, marital status, or nationality.

These aren't "obvious." They're required by law. Discrimination against age or nationality is also illegal. Learn the basics of the law, please.

EEOC Facts on National Employment Law

[caravaggiojr82]

Here's a new development on these issues from Virginia.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/CUCCGAT05_20100305-182601/328592/

[prytania3]

Here's a new development on these issues from Virginia.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/CUCCGAT05_20100305-182601/328592/

That's what happpens when the Yankees come down. Cuccinelli is not one of Virginia's own.

[femaestro]

It is unfortunate that as the land of the "Free and Brave" we seem to spend more time trying to be as "Oppressive and Cowardly" as possible, it is so sad.

[embitteredhistorian]

There are obvious legal restrictions against discriminating according to race, creed, or gender, but then there are legal forms of discrimination that I would consider unethical, such as discriminating according to sexual preference, age, marital status, or nationality.

These aren't "obvious." They're required by law. Discrimination against age or nationality is also illegal. Learn the basics of the law, please.

EEOC Facts on National Employment Law

I have absolutely no idea what the purpose of this post is. Surely they are "obvious legal restrictions" because they're required by law--learn the basics of English, please.

Also, "national origin" and "nationality" are very different things. The Age Discrimination act applies to people over 40--it is legal to discriminate against people under 40.

Perhaps you should learn the basics of law first.

[untenured]

There are obvious legal restrictions against discriminating according to race, creed, or gender, but then there are legal forms of discrimination that I would consider unethical, such as discriminating according to sexual preference, age, marital status, or nationality.

These aren't "obvious." They're required by law. Discrimination against age or nationality is also illegal. Learn the basics of the law, please.

EEOC Facts on National Employment Law

I have absolutely no idea what the purpose of this post is. Surely they are "obvious legal restrictions" because they're required by law--learn the basics of English, please.

Also, "national origin" and "nationality" are very different things. The Age Discrimination act applies to people over 40--it is legal to discriminate against people under 40.

Perhaps you should learn the basics of law first.

Madhatter was right to correct.  Your post implied that age, sexual preference, marital status, or nationality were mere ethical obligations and not legal ones.  Thus Madhatter's statement about the basics of the law.

Age discrimination is illegal under *federal* law against people over 40.  However, there are numerous state laws (New Jersey for example) that prohibit age discrimination regardless of age.

Sexual preference is legal under federal law, but many states prohibit this under their state laws.

Discrimination on the basis of marital status is illegal in many states too.  It's awfully close to illegal under federal law.

Nationality and national origin may be different, but for purposes of employment the distinction may not make a difference.  Employments cannot discriminate on these grounds either.

For our searches, we must provide specific, written, and objective criteria for hiring (or not hiring) every single candidate that applies to HR.  There is no clothing category or other strange criteria.  It creates a lot of paperwork, but ensures objective hiring as much as possible.

Untenured

[aandsdean]

There are obvious legal restrictions against discriminating according to race, creed, or gender, but then there are legal forms of discrimination that I would consider unethical, such as discriminating according to sexual preference, age, marital status, or nationality.

These aren't "obvious." They're required by law. Discrimination against age or nationality is also illegal. Learn the basics of the law, please.

EEOC Facts on National Employment Law

I have absolutely no idea what the purpose of this post is. Surely they are "obvious legal restrictions" because they're required by law--learn the basics of English, please.

Also, "national origin" and "nationality" are very different things. The Age Discrimination act applies to people over 40--it is legal to discriminate against people under 40.

Perhaps you should learn the basics of law first.

Madhatter was right to correct.  Your post implied that age, sexual preference, marital status, or nationality were mere ethical obligations and not legal ones.  Thus Madhatter's statement about the basics of the law.

Age discrimination is illegal under *federal* law against people over 40.  However, there are numerous state laws (New Jersey for example) that prohibit age discrimination regardless of age.

Sexual preference is legal under federal law, but many states prohibit this under their state laws.

Discrimination on the basis of marital status is illegal in many states too.  It's awfully close to illegal under federal law.

Nationality and national origin may be different, but for purposes of employment the distinction may not make a difference.  Employments cannot discriminate on these grounds either.

For our searches, we must provide specific, written, and objective criteria for hiring (or not hiring) every single candidate that applies to HR.  There is no clothing category or other strange criteria.  It creates a lot of paperwork, but ensures objective hiring as much as possible.

Untenured

Actually, nationality is not protected, but national origin is.  (In other words, you can't discriminate against me because my grandparents were Norwegian--national origin--but you can discriminate against me because I am Norwegian--nationality.)

In a search, according to immigration requirements, you can ONLY hire a foreign national/noncitizen if there are no equally qualified American citizens in the pool, or if you've offered to American citizens first and they have declined the job.

However, the minute that applicant has US citizenship, theoretically (and should be in practice) you move from nationality to national origin, from unprotected to protected.

[untenured]

There are obvious legal restrictions against discriminating according to race, creed, or gender, but then there are legal forms of discrimination that I would consider unethical, such as discriminating according to sexual preference, age, marital status, or nationality.

These aren't "obvious." They're required by law. Discrimination against age or nationality is also illegal. Learn the basics of the law, please.

EEOC Facts on National Employment Law

I have absolutely no idea what the purpose of this post is. Surely they are "obvious legal restrictions" because they're required by law--learn the basics of English, please.

Also, "national origin" and "nationality" are very different things. The Age Discrimination act applies to people over 40--it is legal to discriminate against people under 40.

Perhaps you should learn the basics of law first.

Madhatter was right to correct.  Your post implied that age, sexual preference, marital status, or nationality were mere ethical obligations and not legal ones.  Thus Madhatter's statement about the basics of the law.

Age discrimination is illegal under *federal* law against people over 40.  However, there are numerous state laws (New Jersey for example) that prohibit age discrimination regardless of age.

Sexual preference is legal under federal law, but many states prohibit this under their state laws.

Discrimination on the basis of marital status is illegal in many states too.  It's awfully close to illegal under federal law.

Nationality and national origin may be different, but for purposes of employment the distinction may not make a difference.  Employments cannot discriminate on these grounds either.

For our searches, we must provide specific, written, and objective criteria for hiring (or not hiring) every single candidate that applies to HR.  There is no clothing category or other strange criteria.  It creates a lot of paperwork, but ensures objective hiring as much as possible.

Untenured

Actually, nationality is not protected, but national origin is.  (In other words, you can't discriminate against me because my grandparents were Norwegian--national origin--but you can discriminate against me because I am Norwegian--nationality.)

In a search, according to immigration requirements, you can ONLY hire a foreign national/noncitizen if there are no equally qualified American citizens in the pool, or if you've offered to American citizens first and they have declined the job.

However, the minute that applicant has US citizenship, theoretically (and should be in practice) you move from nationality to national origin, from unprotected to protected.

Yes, that's true.  Thanks for clarifying.

Untenured

[madhatter]

There are obvious legal restrictions against discriminating according to race, creed, or gender, but then there are legal forms of discrimination that I would consider unethical, such as discriminating according to sexual preference, age, marital status, or nationality.

These aren't "obvious." They're required by law. Discrimination against age or nationality is also illegal. Learn the basics of the law, please.

EEOC Facts on National Employment Law

I have absolutely no idea what the purpose of this post is.

To provide access to a simple explanation of frequently (and in this case, observably) misunderstood employment law. I see you did some reading. You're welcome.

[takapa]

Back to the OP here.  I think some of the things you are getting at (perhaps with clothes, ties to the community, etc) are some of those "fit" things we all think about but never quantify to anyones satisfaction.  I can't say that I've ever seen clothes come up on any search committee on which I have been a part, but there are dozens of threads on these fora where people worry about clothes and what they mean in the hiring process.  To be fair, though, every candidate I've ever evaluated has worn a variation of the same suit so not much to talk about.

I, for one, have never seen anything that smacked of discrimination on the committees I've been on over the years.  We basically look for research productivity and grant getting.  Sure, we want people who seem like they will get along with us and who will stay around even after tenure.  But, if someone came along who was strong and didn't seem like they would be much like us I don't think it would matter.  We would have a home for them.

And Pry is right about the new AG....  But, I'm a transplant as well....  Pry, someone in the news here suggested he did that simply to force the legislature to pass a new bill to provide the coverage that's missing.  But, just such a bill died in the state house today....

[embitteredhistorian]

There are obvious legal restrictions against discriminating according to race, creed, or gender, but then there are legal forms of discrimination that I would consider unethical, such as discriminating according to sexual preference, age, marital status, or nationality.

These aren't "obvious." They're required by law. Discrimination against age or nationality is also illegal. Learn the basics of the law, please.

EEOC Facts on National Employment Law

I have absolutely no idea what the purpose of this post is.

To provide access to a simple explanation of frequently (and in this case, observably) misunderstood employment law. I see you did some reading. You're welcome.

I would hope in future you would not openly advertise your lack of comprehension of a simple concept in a poorly executed attempt to be snarky.

If you're not going to be helpful, don't post.

untenured: it would be impossible to make a post that encompasses every difference on the state level, since many states contradict themselves when it comes to discrimination. Right now I am listening to an NPR story about gays not being allowed to adopt in Florida, for example. However, my hope was to begin an open discussion of what extra-legal criteria are acceptable to people on this forum on a personal, ethical level.

I brought this up because I was shocked to discover that some people on this forum find it perfectly okay to give preference to the spouse of a member of staff, although many private businesses have strict policies against these things (although out of legal worries and not ethical ones, of course).

I'd love to bring this thread back to a more fruitful discussion of where people personally draw their own ethical lines, instead of nitpicking about legal requirements that I would hope academics would try to surpass in their personal and professional conduct.

[untenured]

untenured: it would be impossible to make a post that encompasses every difference on the state level, since many states contradict themselves when it comes to discrimination. Right now I am listening to an NPR story about gays not being allowed to adopt in Florida, for example. However, my hope was to begin an open discussion of what extra-legal criteria are acceptable to people on this forum on a personal, ethical level.

I brought this up because I was shocked to discover that some people on this forum find it perfectly okay to give preference to the spouse of a member of staff, although many private businesses have strict policies against these things (although out of legal worries and not ethical ones, of course).

I'd love to bring this thread back to a more fruitful discussion of where people personally draw their own ethical lines, instead of nitpicking about legal requirements that I would hope academics would try to surpass in their personal and professional conduct.

Got it. I just found the legal requirements (nitpicky or not) more interesting than the ethical issues.  Thus my focus.  If you want to talk about those that's ffine too.

Untenured

[oldadjunct]

I brought this up because I was shocked to discover that some people on this forum find it perfectly okay to give preference to the spouse of a member of staff, although many private businesses have strict policies against these things (although out of legal worries and not ethical ones, of course).

I'd love to bring this thread back to a more fruitful discussion of where people personally draw their own ethical lines, instead of nitpicking about legal requirements that I would hope academics would try to surpass in their personal and professional conduct.

But this just is not true.  There are no legal restrictions to hiring spouses.  None at all.  Nor are the considerations ethical.  These are straightforward organizational matters of the possibility of conflicts of interest.

I am all for clarifying issues, but that is not done on the basis of false claims and unclear distinctions.  There are no legal or ethical dimensions to spousal hires.

The line is drawn at whether attracting one spouse is a sufficiently strong business motivation to accommodate the other spouse, and then creating the appropriate organizational structure to avoid conflicts. Nothing legal or ethical about it, just business.

[embitteredhistorian]

I brought this up because I was shocked to discover that some people on this forum find it perfectly okay to give preference to the spouse of a member of staff, although many private businesses have strict policies against these things (although out of legal worries and not ethical ones, of course).

I'd love to bring this thread back to a more fruitful discussion of where people personally draw their own ethical lines, instead of nitpicking about legal requirements that I would hope academics would try to surpass in their personal and professional conduct.

But this just is not true.  There are no legal restrictions to hiring spouses.  None at all.  Nor are the considerations ethical.  These are straightforward organizational matters of the possibility of conflicts of interest.

I am all for clarifying issues, but that is not done on the basis of false claims and unclear distinctions.  There are no legal or ethical dimensions to spousal hires.

The line is drawn at whether attracting one spouse is a sufficiently strong business motivation to accommodate the other spouse, and then creating the appropriate organizational structure to avoid conflicts. Nothing legal or ethical about it, just business.

As I was told by an upper manager at a major multi-national (I think they're a Fortune 500) based in the U.S., the company's policy is to disallow spousal hires because of the fear of lawsuits relating to sexual harassment, favoritism, etc. Hence the "legal worries" in my previous post.

Ironically, my friend's wife--who works for a different major multi-national--confirmed that at her company they have the same policy for the same reason. It's not a matter of business--it's a matter of CYA.

I would disagree with you that there is no "ethical dimension" to spousal hires. Considering whom one has married is very different from considering their professional accomplishments, skills, abilities, etc. Why is there no ethical dimension to that?