Sunshine Coast University: Women Only Engineering Professorship

[EEVblog]

University of the Sunshine Coast bans men from applying for engineering associate professor role to 'promote equal opportunity' for women
The University of the Sunshine Coast has banned men from applying for an engineering associate professor role, strictly limiting the position to "women only".

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-bans-men-from-applying-for-engineering-associate-professor-role-to-promote-equal-opportunity-for-women/news-story/dfcce2f59366c7f9ccf13d97aefad1fb?preview=true

https://thenightly.com.au/politics/australia/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-bans-men-from-applying-for-engineering-associate-professor-role-c-17866091

https://careers.usc.edu.au/associate-professor-mechanical-engineering

[SiliconWizard]

That's something that would be illegal in many countries (at least stated openly like this). How come this is allowed in Australia?

[EEVblog]

That's something that would be illegal in many countries (at least stated openly like this). How come this is allowed in Australia?

I believe our "Equal Opportunity" laws ironically allow it.
The University of Technology in Sydney lowered engineering entry scores for women, discussed on here at the time.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/university-boosts-female-enrolments-in-male-dominated-subjects-after-lowering-atar-bar-20221010-p5bomw.html

[.RC.]

It is not a problem for men these days.

All you have to do is say you identify as a woman and job done.   

[tszaboo]

That's something that would be illegal in many countries (at least stated openly like this). How come this is allowed in Australia?

I believe our "Equal Opportunity" laws ironically allow it.
The University of Technology in Sydney lowered engineering entry scores for women, discussed on here at the time.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/university-boosts-female-enrolments-in-male-dominated-subjects-after-lowering-atar-bar-20221010-p5bomw.html

You have elections in what, 3 months? This is only going to alienate more people.
Laws can change. Will they?

[tggzzz]

University of the Sunshine Coast bans men from applying for engineering associate professor role to 'promote equal opportunity' for women
The University of the Sunshine Coast has banned men from applying for an engineering associate professor role, strictly limiting the position to "women only".

I am surprised it is that crude.

It is reasonable to require that the successful applicant should clearly and demonstrably have the experience relevant for the post. In this case that might mean a woman rather than a man. Such "subtle" differences between candidates could be determined at interview, thus avoiding that specific situation.

IMHO it is right and proper to encourage minorities (whatever that means) to endeavour to move into non-traditional roles. I have no problem if there are two equally competent candidates and the minority candidate wins because they are a minority candidate. I have problems if they are less competent and win because they are a minority candidate.

To people that complain that "too few women are in top jobs", I ask whether they are fighting against prejudice based on someone's genetic and chromosomal makeup. They have to answer yes, and agree with their objectives. I then note small people rarely have top jobs due to prejudice, and ask if that means they will join my fight for short people's equality. If they say no, then I point out their hypocrisy and ask why I should join their cause.

[Zero999]

IMHO it is right and proper to encourage minorities (whatever that means) to endeavour to move into non-traditional roles.

Why?

I don't see any moral reason to encourage certain groups of people to enter professions, where they're typically underrepresented.

As long as there isn't any discrimination, other than that based on competence, then there is nothing to address. There's no point in encouraging people into doing jobs they're typically not interested in.

I also find it odd, how none of these activists are so keen on addressing the under representation of female refuse collectors, warehouse operatives, oil rig workers etc.

[jonovid]

did they not get the memo?
reverse sexism is so 2022  most of us are so over this

[Someone]

Comes up regularly:
https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-rethink-recruitment-for-men-in-primary-schools-66670

[.RC.]

It would be just another of the reasons why in western countries there has been a bit of a lurch to the social right of where those countries currently sit.

I think there certainly are sex prejudices in industries that have stopped women and men from taking up certain professions.   You will notice though that most of the talk is all about high end white collar jobs.  There is little talk of getting women into say off shore oil rig drilling or men into pre-school teaching.

Though there has been a great increase in women getting into blue collar trade jobs which is good.  I think those women are the real trail blazers as they would have to put up with a lot of crap to get on in a lot of those male dominated blue collar areas.  These "power women" who do a law degree or some other sort of humanities degree, no they are not trail blazers.  That is just easy basic stuff these days.

[tggzzz]

IMHO it is right and proper to encourage minorities (whatever that means) to endeavour to move into non-traditional roles.

Why?

I don't see any moral reason to encourage certain groups of people to enter professions, where they're typically underrepresented.

As long as there isn't any discrimination, other than that based on competence, then there is nothing to address. There's no point in encouraging people into doing jobs they're typically not interested in.

You've missed the point, and you've chosen to snip my point about it not being acceptable to prefer a less competent person.

I presume you've never had children. If you had then you would realise that sometimes they need encouragement to do something they never believed they could do and/or never knew they would like.

For my daughter, she was "a minority" for several of these:

• going to the bottom of the garden on her own, to put some leaves on the compost heap. (Wide-eyed "What me, all on my own?")
• going down a playground slide
• sliding down polished rocks on her backside[1]
• climbing trees
• backpacking around India in her early teens, not knowing where we would sleep that night
• skiing ("Meh", until she had tried it)
• being a solo pilot years before she could drive a car on the road. (When I first mentioned flying gliders, her response was to shake her head and expel breath in a brrr. After her first winch launch, she was hooked)

All those have proved invaluable to her (and me!), in ways neither of us imagined.

I also find it odd, how none of these activists are so keen on addressing the under representation of female refuse collectors, warehouse operatives, oil rig workers etc.

I occasionally tease people with such things, and more.

[1] not my daughter, but those are the rocks polished by many generations of backsides. No idea how many people did it before they became polished!

[tggzzz]

It would be just another of the reasons why in western countries there has been a bit of a lurch to the social right of where those countries currently sit.

I suspect and fear there is some validity in that.

There is always a tendency to blame "someone else" for your own misfortunes - or worse where you are "the architect of your own misfortunes". Such attitudes should be rigorously challenged.

[Ice-Tea]

IMHO it is right and proper to encourage minorities (whatever that means) to endeavour to move into non-traditional roles.

Why?

I don't see any moral reason to encourage certain groups of people to enter professions, where they're typically underrepresented.

As long as there isn't any discrimination, other than that based on competence, then there is nothing to address.

There you go, you answered your own question ;-)

[coppice]

That's something that would be illegal in many countries (at least stated openly like this). How come this is allowed in Australia?

I believe our "Equal Opportunity" laws ironically allow it.
The University of Technology in Sydney lowered engineering entry scores for women, discussed on here at the time.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/university-boosts-female-enrolments-in-male-dominated-subjects-after-lowering-atar-bar-20221010-p5bomw.html

Surely nothing says Equal Opportunity like banning people?

[gamalot]

I thought this only happened in Victoria. 

[coppice]

IMHO it is right and proper to encourage minorities (whatever that means) to endeavour to move into non-traditional roles. I have no problem if there are two equally competent candidates and the minority candidate wins because they are a minority candidate. I have problems if they are less competent and win because they are a minority candidate.

IMHO it is right and proper to ensure the minimum of obstacles to people pursuing whatever they are capable of, and interested in. The problem with "encouragement" is it quickly morphs into coercion. Quite a few women have gone through engineering degree programs because the encouragement was in the form of getting in with lower grades, or being given a scholarship they would not have otherwise got. Not entirely unlike a drug pedaller providing a free first dose. However, they either don't actually use that degree, or get an initial engineering job, find they don't like it, and run away. You'll find a lot more women engineering graduates in China and India than in most western countries. You'll find a lot more women one year out of university in China and India doing solid engineering work. You won't find many women five years out of university in solid engineering work, although you'll find quite a few have moved to sales and marketing in engineering companies. These women were sucked into a path they didn't enjoy, and moved on from as soon as they reasonably could.

[EEVblog]

As long as there isn't any discrimination, other than that based on competence, then there is nothing to address. There's no point in encouraging people into doing jobs they're typically not interested in.

That's just called advertising. You might not know you are interested in something until it's presented to you in a way you find appealing. You might get lucky with some people and spark an interest by making them think about it. Clueless kids looking for something do for college are the classic example.

[tom66]

Disturbing, but not surprising for a university.

[tggzzz]

As long as there isn't any discrimination, other than that based on competence, then there is nothing to address. There's no point in encouraging people into doing jobs they're typically not interested in.

That's just called advertising. You might not know you are interested in something until it's presented to you in a way you find appealing. You might get lucky with some people and spark an interest by making them think about it. Clueless kids looking for something do for college are the classic example.

Merely "making X look appealing" is insufficient.

It is beneficial to encourage people to believe they could do X, that ordinary people like themselves can do X, and that wearing your pants on top of your trousers is not a precondition.

[coppercone2]

I think what i noticed is that with how hard people bullshit about qualifications putting any kind of favor to anything just makes it totally crooked and non functional, PLEASE dont give someone MORE leverage.


well and the job description is usually filled with fabrications too, possibly to detect fabrications:?:?

[John B]

Women aren't a minority, either in the general population or on university campus. If universities want to artificially promote women for aesthetic purposes then they shouldn't receive taxpayer funding.

However that won't change as Dave mentioned it is explicitly written in the law that sex discrimination is wrong as long as it's aimed at men and benefits women*. I wish that were an oversimplification but it isn't. The government can grant exceptions where they think discrimination is OK.

*in recent years, male women have thrown a bit of a wrench in that system.

The next step in this game are the articles bemoaning the idea that women might then be viewed as less competent diversity hires if there's jobs specifically selecting them, women-only scholarships, and lowered entry standards for women.

[Zero999]

IMHO it is right and proper to encourage minorities (whatever that means) to endeavour to move into non-traditional roles.

Why?

I don't see any moral reason to encourage certain groups of people to enter professions, where they're typically underrepresented.

As long as there isn't any discrimination, other than that based on competence, then there is nothing to address. There's no point in encouraging people into doing jobs they're typically not interested in.

You've missed the point, and you've chosen to snip my point about it not being acceptable to prefer a less competent person.

I have just quoted the part of your post I had a question about.

I presume you've never had children. If you had then you would realise that sometimes they need encouragement to do something they never believed they could do and/or never knew they would like.

For my daughter, she was "a minority" for several of these:

• going to the bottom of the garden on her own, to put some leaves on the compost heap. (Wide-eyed "What me, all on my own?")
• going down a playground slide
• sliding down polished rocks on her backside[1]
• climbing trees
• backpacking around India in her early teens, not knowing where we would sleep that night
• skiing ("Meh", until she had tried it)
• being a solo pilot years before she could drive a car on the road. (When I first mentioned flying gliders, her response was to shake her head and expel breath in a brrr. After her first winch launch, she was hooked)

All those have proved invaluable to her (and me!), in ways neither of us imagined.

I also find it odd, how none of these activists are so keen on addressing the under representation of female refuse collectors, warehouse operatives, oil rig workers etc.

I occasionally tease people with such things, and more.

[1] not my daughter, but those are the rocks polished by many generations of backsides. No idea how many people did it before they became polished!

That's the parent's job. Nothing to do with university.

IMHO it is right and proper to encourage minorities (whatever that means) to endeavour to move into non-traditional roles.

Why?

I don't see any moral reason to encourage certain groups of people to enter professions, where they're typically underrepresented.

As long as there isn't any discrimination, other than that based on competence, then there is nothing to address.

There you go, you answered your own question ;-)

How have I answered my own question?

There is a difference between not discriminating against people, based on characteristics other than merit and encouraging people into a certain job, because they have irrelevant characteristics.

In this case it's taking it further: so-called positive discrimination or affirmative action, which is purely a socialist policy that will not do any good for anyone.

[nctnico]

There is something to say for having a close to 50/50 mix of men and women on the workfloor. It makes for a much nicer atmosphere to work in. Too many men or too many women is just toxic and I can imagine people don't feel welcome in workplaces where one gender dominates.

[thm_w]

Why?

I don't see any moral reason to encourage certain groups of people to enter professions, where they're typically underrepresented.

Its something to try, maybe it works out and we end up with some great female engineers, maybe it doesn't.
There are plenty of professions using various techniques to target future members. It doesn't have to be a moral cause.
I would agree that the end goal should definitely not be equal gender representation in all professions.

As long as there isn't any discrimination, other than that based on competence, then there is nothing to address. There's no point in encouraging people into doing jobs they're typically not interested in.

There is some level of discrimination, clearly, but that is not something easily nailed down and not worth discussing here.

I also find it odd, how none of these activists are so keen on addressing the under representation of female refuse collectors, warehouse operatives, oil rig workers etc.

Of course they do: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/fort-mcmurray-women-in-oil-1.6372217

[Gregg]

60 years ago this would have been called “reverse discrimination” in a feeble virtue signaling attempt to reduce discrimination via even more discrimination. 
The words have been changed, but the concept persists.