37

By "gender preferential treatment" I mean: Person A is selected ahead of Person B partly because of gender. In other words, Person B would have been selected ahead of Person A had gender not been taken into account.

By "deliberate" I mean: as a matter of policy at the department or university or state or national level, or at the discretion of the committee that makes the decision. This does not include unintentional bias, which might occur as part of human nature.

By "STEM fields" I mean: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

I'm interested in four stages.

  1. Graduate school admission

  2. Postdoc hiring

  3. Professor hiring

  4. Tenure or promotion decision

Answers can be about any country. But please keep in mind that the question is not about why deliberate gender preferential treatment is a good or a bad idea. It is about what happens in reality.

Answers should be supported by either references to publicly available policies, research, or firsthand personal experience (e.g. on hiring committees).

ysk
  • 731
  • 1
  • 7
  • 13
  • 9
    In the UK it is illegal to choose A by gender over B if B would have been preferred, but I think it would be legal to choose A on the basis of gender if A and B are considered to be equally qualified for the job. In practice I'd imagine that would be hard to quantify in academia. – Jessica B Jan 23 '15 at 09:28
  • 18
    It's important to note that non-deliberate bias does exist; the most clear-cut example I know is this research. Faculty shown identical CVs 'rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant'. Does this count as deliberate? How much does intent matter if the nondeliberate is this clear-cut? – E.P. Jan 23 '15 at 12:43
  • 8
    In my undergraduate computer science program there was a total of SIX females. There isn't a lack of female graduate students in the field because of 'discrimination' but rather because of lack of applicants. On the contrary, in STEM related fields academia and industry are practically giving positions to any woman that applies. – easymoden00b Jan 23 '15 at 14:32
  • 8
    @easymoden00b "On the contrary, in STEM related fields academia and industry are practically giving positions to any woman that applies" ... citation needed ... I highly doubt this. – WetlabStudent Jan 23 '15 at 14:42
  • 6
    @WetLabStudent believe whatever you want. Affirmative Action exists. – easymoden00b Jan 23 '15 at 15:16
  • 21
    @easymoden00b affirmative action is not the same as "practically giving positions to any woman that applies." – WetlabStudent Jan 23 '15 at 15:30
  • 19
    @WetLabStudent when <14% of top university computer science undergraduates are female any company or place of study in the country would put them at the first position in any hiring queue they've set up. After recent public 'diversity' attacks against technology companies positioned in The Valley they're all more than willing to cut off both arms and a leg and to put more females in such roles, not based upon ethic nor quality but solely upon sex and diversity. Like I said believe whatever you want. – easymoden00b Jan 23 '15 at 15:38
  • 6
    The answer to the question rests, at least partially, on the assumption that candidates can be uniquely ranked 1 through n for a given position (perhaps less so for 1 above than for 2-4). In any real hiring decision there are multiple factors to take into account, and a unique and objective ranking is absolutely impossible. Gender and diversity can (and should) be one of them. – Jon Custer Jan 23 '15 at 15:48
  • 7
    @easymoden00b I think if your claims were true, then the gender gap would close with seniority and not expand – StrongBad Jan 23 '15 at 16:05
  • 7
    @easymoden00b The way you say "believe whatever you want" in your posts strikes me as condescending and disrespectful. – Trevor Wilson Jan 23 '15 at 17:54
  • 1
    @E.P. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the bias uncovered by that study--which you yourself characterized as "non-deliberate"--doesn't count as deliberate :-) As for your second question, I suppose the answer depends on what you mean by "matter". The OP chose to ask specifically about deliberate preferential treatment, which is certainly a topic that can stand on its own (especially because it may go in a direction opposite that of non-deliberate preferential treatment.) – Trevor Wilson Jan 23 '15 at 19:09
  • 19
    @easymoden00b If what you say is actually true, then women in IT should experience virtually no unemployment of any kind and men should be vastly more likely to be unemployed. They should be quickly rising to high positions in disproportionate numbers, being thrown higher pay than men to keep them around, etc. Women in IT now have a similar unemployment rate to men (previously men always had lower rates), women certainly don't get paid more than men, and it's so rare for a women to be in high positions that it's news. You are naturally entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. – BrianH Jan 23 '15 at 20:25
  • 4
    @BrianDHall That would be true if a) there were enough women with the right qualification and if b) enough women wanted these kinds of jobs. That is, if there were enough (qualified, motivated) female applicants to fill all these positions. This important, necessary condition for "closing the gender gap" is often overlooked. From talking to several corporate representatives and STEM women, job offers themselves rarely seem to be the problem. On the other hand, "how can I possible combine this (STEM) career with family?" is, to name just one example. – Raphael Jan 24 '15 at 10:55
  • 1
    One can maintain an argument that gender discrimination exists as a matter of policy when one only gender is singled out in hiring applications, something like " “We especially welcome applications from members of visible minority groups, women..." as Janice Fiamengo does here: http://pjmedia.com/blog/academic-hiring-and-the-diversity-mandate/ That said, this is just an a comment here, since Janice Fiamengo was referring to an English department http://pjmedia.com/blog/academic-hiring-and-the-diversity-mandate/ – Doug Spoonwood Jan 24 '15 at 18:53
  • @JessicaB That's not correct. Any explicit policy to prefer one gender over another for any hiring decision is illegal, period (or full stop). I am assuming that gender is not a vital part of the job description of course and it's hard to imagine how it would be for an academic position. – Simd Jan 30 '15 at 14:09
  • 1
    @DougSpoonwood There is a legal distinction between advertising in a biased way (for example putting up adverts in places where minorities are more likely to see them) and discrimination in hiring. I think the former is called positive action and the latter positive discrimination. The former can be legal in some cases, the latter is hardly ever legal. – Simd Jan 30 '15 at 14:19
  • @Lembik See the first example on p7 – Jessica B Jan 30 '15 at 17:47
  • @JessicaB " Positive action provisions mean that it is not unlawful discrimination to take special measures aimed at alleviating disadvantage or under-representation experienced by those with any of these characteristics. " You are quite right (and I am quite out of date) if there is indeed under-representation of women in the job you are applying for. I suppose this might apply equally to men applying to a predominantly female department. I am not at all clear how the law applies to graduate school admission – Simd Jan 30 '15 at 18:54
  • @Lembik Hiring rules where the female candidate is automatically chosen if she has the same qualification as the male candidate are widespread. So does Hiring policies where the final round requires at least one female candidate (else the committee has to do a lot of painful paperwork ). Also, beyond affirmative action there are several scholarships and tenure track positions that are explicitly women-only. – Greg Aug 03 '17 at 00:10

5 Answers5

55

It's rather subtle trying to decide what counts as gender preferential treatment. For example, suppose the hiring committee decides to interview Bob, Carl, and Dave. As a sanity check, someone goes through the applications from women to see whether anyone was overlooked, and they are impressed by Alice's application. There's some debate about whether she looks quite as strong on paper as the other three, but the department decides to interview her as well. Alice is extraordinarily impressive in person, and once all the interviews are complete and the department has learned more about her work, she is the unanimous first choice. Does this count as preferential treatment? A male applicant might not have been rescued from being overlooked the way Alice was, but he might have been less likely to be overlooked in the first place, so it's difficult to give an objective answer (it depends on which counterfactual scenario you imagine). Gender was not relevant for the decision once all the information was gathered, but deliberate steps were taken based on gender to minimize the potential for bias in the process.

In my experience with mathematics in the U.S., these sorts of steps are pretty common. In the committees I've served on (for both admissions and hiring), people have often gone out of their way to try to identify diverse sorts of candidates and make sure they are not overlooked or disadvantaged. Not everyone participates eagerly in this, but some do it out of conviction that it's intrinsically worthwhile, while others play along to keep the administration from complaining. On the other hand, I've never seen this process extend to advantages in the final decision. In particular, I haven't seen a case in which Alice was hired or admitted instead of Bob just because she was female, although the committee was more impressed by Bob than Alice otherwise.

Tie breakers are the closest I've seen to an explicit preference. In graduate admissions many decisions are easy, but there's always a (small) group of comparable candidates right near the borderline for admission, where nobody can give a compelling argument for why one is superior to another. Within that group, being female could prove an advantage: if Alice and Bob are equally strong candidates in other ways, but Alice would help bring gender balance to the department and Bob would not, then that's a good reason to admit Alice. This doesn't generally arise in hiring, since few enough people are hired that there are many strong opinions and the hiring committee is unlikely to decide two candidates are truly tied. However, it can happen in admissions, which is a lower-stakes process carried out on a larger scale and with less information. I'm mainly mentioning it for completeness, since few applicants are actually close enough to the cut-off for this to matter.

Anonymous Mathematician
  • 132,532
  • 17
  • 374
  • 531
  • 8
    This is exactly my experience from a department in Germany. An additional thing was the unofficial policy of the university president to prefer female professors to male ones if they were ranked equal on a list forwarded by the hiring committee. The solution, if you did not agree with this, was simple: Always express your preferences clearly. – Gregor Botero Jan 23 '15 at 10:09
  • 3
    @GregorBruns Afaik, if you invite a woman for interviews and not put her on the shortlist, special reasoning is necessary (not so for men). A common solution is to not invite women for interview if you are not already certain they can make it to the top. – Raphael Jan 23 '15 at 13:37
  • 6
    and to add a bit, contrary to what some anti-feminists might believe ... the same thing happens in fields where women dominate. In nutrition, gender studies, etc. they make a conscious effort not to overlook qualified men. – WetlabStudent Jan 23 '15 at 14:47
  • @Raphael I consider inviting someone for an interview the same as putting them on a short list. What is the difference in Germany. I would love to see some written documentation that says special reasoning is required. – StrongBad Jan 23 '15 at 16:13
  • @StrongBad A hiring commission has to prepare a three-person list for vote in the senate. When approved, the three candidates will be offered the position in the given order. This is the list I was referring to. – Raphael Jan 23 '15 at 16:21
  • 1
    @StrongBad As for evidence, it's an effect of several things. See e.g. here(in particular 4.3.3). In a nutshell, 1) all decisions have to be explained in writing w.r.t. all criteria, 2) gender is a criterion (in the sense that women have to be preferred given equal qualification) and 3) the women's affairs officer has to be involved in all steps. In effect, this means that you have to argue why you put men (higher) on the list than/but not a woman, in case that happens. – Raphael Jan 23 '15 at 16:25
  • 1
    I'm curious as to why they have to prefer a woman given equal qualification? Like what if they interview both their qualifications are equal but the in the interview the woman bombs and the man does, would they still have to choose the woman over the man given that their qualifications are still equal, but the woman didn't interview as well. I'm also curious why you have to argue why you put men higher, to the women's affairs officer, is there a men's affairs officer as well. – user25345 Jan 23 '15 at 18:52
  • @user25345 It is due to the fact that there has not existed a systemic effective restriction against men, so no special defense of men specifically/generally has been put in place. It would be impossible to say that there didn't at least use to be such bias against women and other groups. So it's called affirmative action - an attempt to fix past wrongs and correct known extant bias. One isn't required to like it or agree with the policy, but that is the explanation of 'why' in the causal sense of the question. Now if men continue to drop in rates of college enrollment and graduation... – BrianH Jan 23 '15 at 20:02
  • 1
    @BrianDHall Here's a recent article which indicates that the rate of admission in the U. K. for men is continuing to drop as you suggested in your last sentence: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jan/21/gender-gap-university-admissions-record – Doug Spoonwood Jan 25 '15 at 02:45
  • 3
    @WetLabStudent "and to add a bit, contrary to what some anti-feminists might believe ... the same thing happens in fields where women dominate. In nutrition, gender studies, etc. they make a conscious effort not to overlook qualified men. " But are there special scholarship programs and other sorts of support networks for men to anywhere near that such support networks exist for women in male-dominated STEM fields? – Doug Spoonwood Jan 25 '15 at 02:46
  • 5
    @DougSpoonwood probably not because there is very little money in those fields to begin with. My point was about hiring. In gender studies and nutrition, there is affirmative action for men. I was simply stating that as is, I was not talking about scholarships and support networks. – WetlabStudent Jan 25 '15 at 06:41
38

In Germany, women are in some instances preferred over men for professor positions, to the point of excluding male applicants at all.

  1. There are scholarships and other forms of funding specifically (and exclusively) geared towards women (at all levels). A prominent example is special funding for female professors by BMBF:

    [Secretary of Education Schavan:] "There are not enough female professors, most university teachers are men. [...] 260 new positions have been established [between 2008 and 2012] thanks to the Female Professors Program and have been staffed with women. This is a success - but not nearly enough. Therefore we have initiated a second round."

    [...]

    Up to three [female] professor positions per university [are possible]. [We make] an additional 150 million Euros available for this purpose until 2017.
    Best-effort translation by myself from the German original.

  2. There are professor positions offered only to women¹.

    For one thing, there are "additional" positions like those mentioned above or e.g. at FU Berlin (1, 2).

    [Departments] could apply for being assigned [such a position]. [...] [The applicants] must bring forward proof of at least one highly qualified female applicant.²
    Best-effort translation by myself from the German original.

    This is probably an effect of additional funds for women being available (cf 1).

    But also regular positions can be designated for women only, see e.g. these commission minutes from FHTW Berlin (page 8):

    One of the two professor positions will be tendered twice as women-only position.

    The [Academic Senate of the FHTW Berlin] passes the motion [with 9 yes, 0 no, 4 abstention].
    Best-effort translation by myself from the German original.

    Official statements regarding systemic discrimination (of men) are hard to come by (even if it is effectively encouraged/enforced by policy at times). See some press on one case here and here.

  3. There are support structures available only to women, such as the concept of Frauenbeauftragte (Am. women's affairs officer) (who have special roles and privileges) and often have funds spent on e.g. training seminars only open for women (which is not always enforced).

  1. You hear stories, but there will often be no paper trail as these things can and tend to be decided behind the curtains. The way hiring of professors works in Germany, if the commission wants phenotype X, they can get it (if they play their cards right). In the gender question, this may be a result of a) policy makers demanding more female professors (by way of blocking any other choice) and b) the funding situation (cf 1), esp. in the light of decreasing funding across the board.).

  2. They then say, "after the position has been assigned to the department, a regular hiring process ensues". I'm not clear if that means male applicants are admitted, or if only the process itself is a regular one.

Raphael
  • 1,777
  • 12
  • 22
  • @dirkk I seem to remember that there is an extra law specifically for hiring of professors, stating that the best candidate has to be hired, period. Since academia laws overrule normal employment law in other instances, that may take priority over the article you cite, but I don't know for sure. I don't remember enough to find the article I mean. – Raphael Jan 23 '15 at 15:55
  • 1
    Sure, this always applies after the qualifications. One can often see the sentence "Schwerbehinderte werden bei gleicher Eignung bevorzugt eingestellt" (Persons with disabilities with the same qualifications will be hired preferential), the same thing is possible with Women in STEM, as they are severely underrepresented in many fields. – dirkk Jan 23 '15 at 16:16
  • 3
    This seems like could somewhat offensive to some women because they are basically treating being a female the same as having a disability, and they need to have an advantage otherwise they won't get a job. – user25345 Jan 23 '15 at 18:59
  • 15
    A little background might help though—the situation regarding women in faculty positions in Germany is much worse than it is in the US. The current attitude is trying to undo the pattern of active discrimination that took place for many decades. – aeismail Jan 23 '15 at 21:38
  • 17
    @aeismail There more male professors the female, that's true. The implicit assumption that this is bad and the result of "active discrimination" is harmful, imho. The situation is far more complex and unlikely to be remedied by saying, let's hire only women for a while. Also, I refuse to agree to having my career sabotaged by active, intentional gender-based discrimination for (vacuous, imho) reasons outside of my control. Some "feminists" try to establish some kind of original sin there, and I refuse to buy into that. – Raphael Jan 24 '15 at 09:21
  • 14
    @aeismail That said, the facts of my answer stand. At least in this version, I have consciously tried to avoid judgement, hence reasoning. The system actively, consciously discriminates men today -- that's a fact. Whether you think that's okay is another question. – Raphael Jan 24 '15 at 09:24
  • 1
    Removed my down vote, as you have now provided evidence and some context. I will change it to an up-vote if you include something about how females are underrepresented in Germany far below the levels seen in most developed countries e.g. in Engineering in the US women make up 21% of professors in Germany 9% in natural sciences (US=40%, Germany=12%). You can still disagree with what Germany's doing, but this information is necessary of us to be able to understand why Germany is doing what it's doing. – WetlabStudent Jan 24 '15 at 15:55
  • 3
    "In Germany, women are in some instances preferred over men for professor positions, to the point of excluding male applicants at all."

    Wow. Whoever is making these decisions must either not know or not care that unemployment is a risk factor for homelessness and suicide.

     – Doug Spoonwood Jan 24 '15 at 19:40
  • 5
    @WetLabStudent I don't think how such data serves to answer this question better. Since I don't think (as I said above) that a simple percentage is enough justification for the measures, and there's no room here for an in-depth discussion, I'd rather not include anything like a justification attempt. People will have to make up their own minds and decide whether the ends justify the means, and whether the ends are well-chosen. – Raphael Jan 26 '15 at 10:17
  • 6
    @Doug Spoonwood The proponents of these measures probably think that there are no differences between genders, so any real-life difference must be the result of discrimination. It's an ideological view ignoring interest and performance. And they focus on high-status jobs only (not on, e.g., jobs outside academia with a high mortality rate). I think the goal here is to a) assist unqualified academics and b) to promote conflict between genders. Just imagine the situation reversed with quotas for men. There would be an outcry. You can't create a fair world via unfair methods. – Daniel Wessel Jan 26 '15 at 15:11
  • 2
    Regarding the "Frauenbeauftragte" -- it's "funny" that the position for "Gleichstellungsbeauftragte" (person in charge for equalization) is often limited to women only and can be elected only by women. Even in institutes with 2/3 women. Personally, I can accept not being selected due to my performance. I either try harder in the future or leave academia. But this kind of "positive" discrimination ... what can it provide but mediocrity and quarreling? – Daniel Wessel Jan 26 '15 at 15:16
  • There's a posting on a German website (with a strong ideological slant), but which refers to a MPI paper regarding discrimination of men in sociology: http://cuncti.net/haltbar/864-erstmals-klar-belegt-systematische-diskriminierung-von-maennern-an-universitaeten Haven't read it yet but might be interesting. – Daniel Wessel Jan 26 '15 at 15:24
  • 1
    @Raphael You can certainly protect a gender from unemployment, say by making the job open only to the gender that you want to protect. I'm not saying that such should get done, just that it can. My point wasn't also that anyone can or should try to protect "n-k" individuals from unemployment. My point was just that gender discrimination against men in hiring practices, makes it more likely that men become unemployed and thus such discrimination can influence things such that serious negative consequences happen or become more likely, such as homelessness and suicide. – Doug Spoonwood Jan 26 '15 at 16:40
  • 1
    @Raphael you misread my comment. Germany is taking extreme measures that seem to be very unique to Germany. People from other countries may have trouble believing your answer if you don't provide at least some context as to why Germany would even consider taking such extreme measures. The percentages may not provide adequate justification for what they are doing, but without including them the scenarios you provide sound implausible. – WetlabStudent Jan 26 '15 at 17:07
  • 1
    Please take extended discussion to [chat]. – eykanal Jan 26 '15 at 17:16
  • 1
    @WetLabStudent IIRC, there are similar measures in Scandinavia. I still don't understand you fully (How can the scenarios sound implausible? They are fact.), but let's follow eykanal's request and discuss in [chat]. – Raphael Jan 26 '15 at 18:32
  • Several of the comments in the answer here (support systems, funding) have little to do with the question, which was about hiring and admission. They color the answer strongly. – aquirdturtle Sep 10 '18 at 06:45
  • @aquirdturtle Funding is highly relevant. If the hiring department gets extra millions in funding if they hire a woman, that shifts the competition considerably. (And this is not fiction.) The support structures are maybe less relevant, but (in Germany) Frauenbeauftragte can directly influence admission processes on behalf of participating women. More indirectly, receiving special training and other support while training and/or applying is clearly an advantage. – Raphael Sep 10 '18 at 20:21
  • @aquirdturtle But yes, item 3 is weaker than the others, which is why it comes last. Imho, it belongs there for completeness: it's gender-preferential treatment. – Raphael Sep 10 '18 at 20:21
9

I can only provide answer about Graduate school admission.

In the countries where graduate school admission is based on written exams and the student names on the exam papers are sealed when grading, the gender preferential treatment is next to impossible.

In Taiwan, where I live, this was the case a few decades ago. However, the sytem has been changed to include written exams, oral exams and recommendation letters in some cases, no one knows how much bias is there. As far as I know, there are more female scientists than in the past. I will find some hard data if there is some available in English and update my answer here.

Nobody
  • 13,796
  • 29
  • 57
  • 134
7

The University of Melbourne has instituted the sex of the applicant as a requirement for some positions.

Doug Spoonwood
  • 835
  • 7
  • 10
2

On February 2017 Trump signed laws designed with the purpose of promoting women in STEM.

Multiple universities have Women In Science Programs (WISP) that "promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity for women", sometimes along with "minorities, persons with disabilities and veterans". Some of these programs involve paid internships for women only.

The Mickey Leland Energy Fellowship (MLEF) Program is an internship program for women and under-represented minority students is a 10-Week Summer Internship sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy. It is directed towards students who are pursuing academic majors in science, technology, engineering, and math. Only women and "minority" students need apply.

In 2016, seven global engineering and tech companies (IBM, Intel, General Motors, Booz Allen Hamilton, Cummins, Caterpillar, and Johnson Controls) piloted re-entry, paid internship programs for people who had taken career breaks of two years or longer. In IBM, selected participants are all women.

In Australia, there's the Edith Dornwell Internship for Women in STEM, which is a program provides that one woman each year with three months full time or six months part time fully paid employment with an organisation whose focus is on STEM.

These are but a few examples of the many programs that result in women generally being favored over men. A 2015 study demonstrated an overall 2-to-1 advantage for women in being ranked first for the job in any STEM field.

darij grinberg
  • 6,811
  • 1
  • 25
  • 43
John Slegers
  • 691
  • 6
  • 13