Dtyjlui

the new faculty should be female in order to help address the wildly disproportionate gender ratio in our current faculty.

This is not a good reason. Gender imbalance is fought by educating everybody (males, females and any possible group) equally and hiring the best people, regardless of their gender, not choosing people by gender; that's sexism.

The candidate that we support is highly qualified in terms of research and teaching. Moreover, among all the candidates who have visited, they are the only one who have any experience with diversity initiatives and getting underrepresented groups into stem. This is very important to many of us, especially since the department is planning to add an undergraduate program in the near future.

These are very good reasons to hire someone, and reasons to be proud being hired for. If I were her, I'd find disrespectful being hired first because I'm a woman and second because of these good reasons.

We are planning to write an open letter to the department in support of this candidate, citing her qualifications as someone who has worked to make science a more inclusive place for women and other underrepresented minorities.

Again, these may be good points to write in the open letter, but the fact that she's a woman shouldn't matter. She's a great candidate no matter what her gender is.

I find this logic of hiring women because they are women very sexist, towards both men and women. Towards men because they are at a disadvantage, towards women because you're treating them like kids, giving them a preferential route they don't need. Women can clearly be good enough to be hired just for their skills and not for their gender.

Fight for her to be hired if you think she's the best choice. Write the letter and explain why she's the best choice, that she's better than the other candidates because she is better, not because she's a lady.

If you write such an open letter and she is hired, there is a risk that rumor will spread that she was only hired because she is female and your open letter will help substantiate that rumor. Such rumors are harmful even if she was clearly hired on merit alone.

So consider the possibility that your letter does more harm than good. And, if you do write such a letter, make it clear that you think she is the most qualified candidate for the job, not that you think she should be hired for her gender.

(The answer is written from a US perspective but may apply in certain other countries as well - hopefully this is of some relevance for OP.)

I am not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that what you are proposing (taking gender into account in hiring of faculty) would be illegal in any public university in my state, and I suspect it may run afoul of other US states’ and perhaps US federal legislation. See here and here for more information. I advise you to inform yourself of the laws and policies where you are before writing any letters.

Asking your department to do something that breaks the law is not only completely inappropriate, but it even risks leading a risk-averse administrator to choose (consciously or subconsciously) to take the opposite course of action from what you are proposing, just out of fear that they might later be accused of illegal discrimination, with your letter being used as evidence that they acted out of impure motives.

I do think it’s probably appropriate (under reasonable assumptions about your institution’s culture being a relatively normal and healthy one) for you and other graduate students to express your opinions to the department about which candidate is most qualified for the position, based on objective criteria that are unrelated to gender.

There is general agreement that more women in STEM would be a good thing. There appears to be considerable disagreement about how to achieve this. However, I would like to address the idea of the open letter specifically.

We are planning to write an open letter to the department in support of this candidate, citing her qualifications as someone who has worked to make science a more inclusive place for women and other underrepresented minorities.

My main question is is whether it is appropriate for us to additionally express our desire for a woman faculty member.

I may be slightly too risk averse, but I believe writing an open letter in support of a particular applicant (regardless of race, gender, etc) is ill advised for the following reasons:

1. It is not clear if this candidate wants/needs your support. I presume the fact you are aware of her candidacy implies she has made the short list for the post on her own merits (if gender was a factor in this decision is unknown).


2. The existence of such a letter and a (relatively) wide potential readership could be interpreted negatively by some groups. In my university it is not unusual for even trivial matters, such as the name of a student event, to make national news if it can be construed to be controversial. She may not want to have her name associated with such a potential controversy.


3. If she is hired your letter may be pointed to as evidence of bias in the hiring process even if there was none. In an extreme case it could even lead to a lawsuit. The university would have to be very careful about how to respond to the letter and may decide it is safer to avoid the candidate.


4. Your motivations for writing the letter may be questioned by some groups. Did you write it out of a genuine desire for more female faculty members or was she a friend/connection of yours and you're trying to manipulate the hiring process? (I think your intentions are genuine but others may see things differently)

If you would like to write an open letter advocating for more women academics in your department and highlighting the importance of making STEM more inclusive I think this could be a positive thing. But I don't think you should identify a particular candidate in the letter.

If you want to advocate for a particular candidate you should do so privately to the hiring committee. You could write a letter directly to the chair or discuss it with them in person. I also think this would be more effective.

It is certainly appropriate for you to express your desire for a particular candidate. In addition to writing to the chair of the department, it would also be helpful to contact the chair of the hiring committee (in case that individual is not the chair of the department).

If you are concerned about blowback for some reason, it would also be possible to write and submit the letter anonymously.

We are planning to write an open letter to the department in support
of this candidate, citing her qualifications as someone who has worked
to make science a more inclusive place for women and other
underrepresented minorities.

Assuming that you value inclusivity (and most do, although some don't), then supporting her candidacy for her abilities and experience is entirely appropriate.

My main question is is whether it is appropriate for us to
additionally express our desire for a woman faculty member.

Well, that does depend on how willing you are to be called out for sexism.

What is the difference between the following two statements:

1. Hire him because we want a man in the position.




2. Hire her because we want a woman in the position.

Oh, you can get all sorts of justifications, but the heart of it is that specifying the sex of a new hire as a job qualification is sexist. By definition.

Stick with the inclusivity argument. Everybody knows what you mean.

You can request that the process is thorough and, for example, short list is open. That is to prevent situation where candidates are all college buddies of some dude (because they went to all-male college or whatever).

You can influence the search processes, but hiring should be merit-based, and gender-neutral. However, in my opinion, "manels" appear because of lack of outreach and openness rather than "we couldn't find female candidates". So when people say

you should hire more women

what they mean (IMHO) is

check your process so that you don't follow implicit and explicit biases

For example, does your college provide day care? Or parental leave? Is there some controversial situation that is unresolved? (see what's up with my school)

And of course, you as students have (limited) power to nominate more candidates you deem high-quality. Nobody can stop you from telling your deans or professors "you should also consider X, Y, and Z because we love their work"

This only applies in the United States.

Our department is currently hiring a new faculty member. At the moment, the faculty gender ratio in our department is very skewed, even for our field. I believe that this has a negative impact on the department environment.

It is illegal to consider gender. You could find that if a man were hired, they would alter the environment in the same way you are imagining a woman would. What should matter is whether or not prior or existing hiring practices were/are discriminatory, which resulted in a skewed gender ratio. For example, it can be illegal to hire by word of mouth if that method results in an all male or all female environment. Did you put the desire to alter the departmental environment in your advertisement for the position? If you did, then people of both genders would respond on how they have skills to do that. If someone has certain skills that were not advertised for you cannot assume the others lack them if they do not believe they are supposed to show the skill. Are you hiring based on criteria you did not place in the ad?

This candidate is highly qualified in terms of her research and teaching. Moreover, among all the candidates who have visited, she is the only one who has any experience with diversity initiatives and getting underrepresented groups into STEM. This is very important to many of us, especially since the department is planning to add an undergraduate program in the near future.

This is an appropriate reason to support a candidate if you placed in the advertisement. If you have an ad that says we are hiring based on X, Y, Z and you support them because of A, then you may have a problem. Did you ask the other candidates if they had experience in this? They may, but may have felt it not relevant to the advertised job. In Watson vs Fort Worth Banking and Trust, the court held that if discretionary criteria were used then suit could be brought under equal employment laws if there was a disparate impact. This sounds like disparate impact to me but in the opposite direction of usual enforcement.

We are planning to write an open letter to the department in support of this candidate, citing her qualifications as someone who has worked to make science a more inclusive place for women and other underrepresented minorities.

Also appropriate, although weird. By the nature of an open letter, it is open, which means it can be used by losing candidates in lawsuits for improper hiring practices.

My main question is is whether it is appropriate for us to additionally express our desire for a woman faculty member.

It is illegal for anyone with the power to consider a candidate's appropriateness to consider gender. If you are considering gender and you have a vote, then you are in violation of US civil rights and employment laws.

When I say something like "we think the department should hire a woman", I don't strictly mean that the next faculty should be a woman regardless of any other factors. Rather, I mean that the department should hire someone who will be able to relate to the issues women face in academia and STEM, and help champion female students in our department. The average woman will be in a better place to do this than the average man, so perhaps I should have been a bit more precise about what I meant in the original post.

This is gender discrimination. The illegal assumption is that men are unable to relate to women and their issues. It is not legal to assume that a woman can do something better than a man or a man better than a woman. You are confusing skill and knowledge with gender. You are assuming that men are unaware of their environment or the work or professional issues women face. You are also assuming they cannot encourage women into STEM. The US Department of Education is investigating complaints on this under Title IX currently.

While "diversity programs" designed to get underrepresented minorities into stem are discriminatory in the strictest sense of the word, they are in place to address systemic injustices which have existed for a very long time. The hypothetical examples of discriminating against men and women don't account for the fact that many gender/race imbalances in academia exist because of previous institutional discrimination.

In Wards Cove Packing Co. v Antonio, the court ruled that you cannot consider the cumulative effect of past practices, but only specific policies. So if discrimination existed in the past resulting in a current imbalance, then prior women who were not hired may file suit, but it is against the law to now discriminate to fix a prior policy. Affirmative action for students comes under a very different legal structure than employment discrimination and rely on different parts of the legal code.

Please, do yourself a favor and skip the [sex, gender, skin pigmentation, ...](delete as appropriate) of the candidate at all.

It does not matter whether the candidate wears skirt or trousers. It does not matter whether the candidate prefer a night with a man, woman or both.

The other qualities do matter: their qualification, their teaching and mentoring skills, their research work, their managerial skills...

If you mention or even highligh their sex, the message you actually deliver is:

We want her beacuse she is a woman. Period. No matter how bad she is compared to other candidates.

Your message, on the other hand, needs to be:

The candidate we are supporting is the best candidate in the list.

Build the open letter on truthfully higlighting why you think the candidate is the best.

My main question is is whether it is appropriate for us to additionally express our desire for a woman faculty member.

It is not appropriate. Full stop. How can you think it can be?

(Being a female is not related to competences or work done or brilliant mind or attitude... or whatever! What kind of job selection could be that which starts from such a factor? Think twice!)

In current circulation, the common phrase people throw around is "We need more ____ in (advanced positions)" or "more representation for _____ in (advanced positions). This is a result, obviously. Meaning starts to get lost when people interpret the statement as implying "we need to correct for (discriminating criterion) when we position leaders", which is not what people mean when they say that at all. The means to achieve that result is not discrimination based on sex or race or what have you. That said,...

Mentioning gender at all is a sure way to spark backlash. If you're not hiring her specifically based on sex, don't mention it. The key is to mention in this letter the results she will achieve for the company. Refrain from all speculation on why she will achieve this.

Your letter could go something like this:

We believe she should be hired, as she is the best candidate for the job. Among other merits, she has experience with diversity initiatives and getting underrepresented groups into STEM.

You should not write:

We believe she should be hired because we need to support underrepresented groups in STEM.

That'll seem like you mean that you're hiring her due to her status as underrepresented.

I can see this from two perspectives:

1. The college benefits from recruiting. If the female candidate in question can help with STEM recruiting of females, it will bring more applicants (and money) to the college. The college could also then (later on) boast to be "in top-5 colleges for graduating female STEM grads" or what-not. (E.g., the college I go to boasts about being in the top-5 most diversified colleges in the US due to all the exchange students it brings in.)




2. The college is about cranking out research, not balancing gender gaps. As such, they won't care about what gender someone is, or what value they bring to gender diversification initiatives. They're just looking at everything from a research puppy mill perspective, and will hire whatever workhorse they think can crank out the research.

(As a side note, while researchers get stuck teaching, teaching is not their main job. So, a researcher that can teach well is probably a secondary attribute the college considers, but not as highly as, say, students would prefer. Some colleges don't care about a researcher's teaching ability or past experience. It's all about research with them. All of this really hinges on what the college values: research vs. bragging about what they provide for the students.)

There are several examples worldwide of the best Universities posting academic jobs that are only open to women (most of the best unis in Australia have done this, including the Math department at the University of Melbourne [Australia], and the engineering department at the University of Adelaide). This is not a common practice though in most countries. Its generally only done when the department has a rather extreme gender imbalance.

The practice has been shown to drastically increase the quality of female applications for the position compared to open job advertisements. Women on average tend to apply less to positions where they don't feel they match the job description perfectly. For example, a male mathematician who works on partial differential equations that are often used by biologists, but who doesn't specialize in biological applications, is much more likely to apply for a job listed as "A/Prof in mathematical biology" than a similarly qualified woman. This is a big issue because academic committees often don't realize exactly what they want from the ideal candidate until they see the applicant pool. Often, great applicants don't fit the job description perfectly, and they get offered the job.

That said, I wouldn't author an open letter to the department requesting them to hire the female applicant. Instead, I'd write a confidential letter to the hiring committee offering strong support for this candidate. The letter should carefully explain why graduate students think she is the best for the position, and why the gender balance and inclusivity of the department has an effect on the department's performance. Most departments would take this letter very seriously, and it could sway the committee towards the candidate in the case where the decision is very close.

Note though that an open letter is not appropriate because many aspects of a job search (in many countries) is confidential and releasing the identity of candidates is a big no-no, and in some cases even illegal (depends on the country).

If they don't hire the female candidate, I think it is absolutely fair to schedule a meeting with the chair of the department (and potentially even higher up the academic administration) to discuss your concerns. They are legitimate. And any department worth a grain of salt would take these concerns seriously.

My main question is is whether it is appropriate for us to additionally express our desire for a woman faculty member.

Let's make it simple: Do express that desire, but put it in a different letter. (And don't send the two together...)

Also, considering the harsh responses you've gotten here, instead of suggesting a sort of a counter-bias, claim that your department currently has a bias which must be corrected. That is, don't sail against the wind, but with it: Counter-bias for women is controversial, but bias in favor of men is unacceptable. Correcting the latter is, in practice, somewhat of the former. I wouldn't make personal accusations in such a letter, but would suggest forming a committee to review and suggest changes to the hiring process.