These institutions are anxious to tell you two things: who they don’t not want to hire and who they do want to hire. The latter are really echoes of the first, which will become clear in a moment.
This list (example) of who they do want is common: “Women, minorities, and qualified individuals with disabilities are encouraged to apply.” These are variously worded and carry the implication that non-women, non-minority, qualified (?) individuals without disabilities needn’t rush in their applications.
More to our concern is the list of don’t not wants; the string of we-won’t-considers which is now de rigueur in any job announcement. In the good old days, this was a bare “We are an Equal Opportunity Employer.” No more. Now it’s a laundry list of causes, growing ever lengthier.
I’ve seen some long ones, but never one a long as this one, issued by Skidmore College (found at the bottom of this link):
Skidmore College is committed to being an inclusive campus community and, as an Equal Opportunity Employer, does not discriminate in its hiring or employment practices on the basis of gender, race or ethnicity, color, national origin, religion, age, disability, military or marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, domestic violence victim status, predisposing genetic characteristics or prior arrest or conviction record or any other category protected by applicable federal, state, or local laws.
I count 17 don’t not wants; 18 if you include the “other category protected” jazz (“race or ethnicity” is 2, “gender identity or expression” is 2, etc.). This is the basis of our Contest.
Of course, Skidmore doesn’t believe what it wrote, because immediately after this list it announces “members of underrepresented groups are especially encouraged” to apply, which means they’re willing to positively discriminate on the basis of gender, race or ethnicity, and color.
Plus, I bet they’d be willing to negatively discriminate against those who are sexually “oriented” towards children or stray cats, or negatively against those with predisposing genetic characteristics which indicate retardation, or negatively against those with disabilities relating to advanced mental functions, particularly those which facilitate grant writing.
What was oddest was this addendum to the list:
Employment at Skidmore College is contingent upon an acceptable background check result.
But didn’t they just say they wouldn’t negatively discriminate against those with a prior arrest or conviction record? Or do they mean they would discriminate against those whom background investigations reveal are not enthusiastic supporters of diversity? Who can tell.
Rules
Whoever can discover a longer list than Skidmore’s qualifies. The number to beat is 17 (“other” categories won’t count). I am the complete and unquestionable arbiter. The first with the longest list before Friday, 18 October 2013 wins. If nobody has anything by then, the contest is off.
The list may come from any English-speaking college, university, or educational institution aimed at those past high school from anywhere in the world. It must be fully documented, preferably with a link where we can check. The list must be copied into the comment box below.
Prize
A Kindle version of Ed Feser’s terrific The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism. The winner must email me the email he uses with Amazon to collect the prize by 25 October 2013 (you don’t need a Kindle to read Kindle books; Amazon has free apps for phones and computers).
Let’s see if we can forward this to as many people as possible so that we have the best chance of discovering the longest list.
Update 19 is now the number to beat. See Brandon Watson’s entry below.
Update 21 is now the number to beat. See Jim Fedako’s entry below.
Update 23 is now the number to beat. See Richard’s entry below. Canada may still be ripe for picking.
Update We have a winner!
Richard, with his Victoria University in Melbourne entry is the grand prize victor with a whopping 23 Don’t Not Wants. Richard, you have until 25 October to email me at matt@wmbriggs.com with the email you use with Amazon. (Also show me the email you used to enter your comment so that I’ll know it’s you and not an imposter.)
“I bet they’d be willing to negatively discriminate against those who are sexually “oriented†towards children or stray cats”
The way things are headed, I would have to recommend against that bet.
I don’t know Briggs, but it seems to me that if you were really interested in teaching jobs you won’t post articles like this. You are supposed to wait until you get tenure as Mike Adams did. Of course you might qualify under the “predisposing genetic characteristics” section: i.e. your compulsion to speak the truth or at least what’s on your mind. You should see the appropriate professional to get diagnosed with Tourette’s or Asperger’s syndrome. Yes that’s the ticket. 🙂
Don’t expect logic from a combination of moral posturing and the power of special interest groups.
Scotian,
Right! I’m a victim! I’m a victim! You have to hire me!
MattS,
On further consideration, I agree: no bet.
LOL Briggs. You’re already wrong on one of these. Genetic discrimination is prohibited:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/genetic.cfm
Mike B,
That so? Then it follows, if intelligence is at all heritable, and it surely is, that colleges cannot discriminate, positively or negatively, on intelligence.
Hmm. On the other hand, this ruling explains such courses as “Queer Musicology”, “Border Crossings, Borderlands: Transnational Feminist Perspectives on Immigration”, and “Drag: Theories of Transgenderism and Performance.”
“Women, minorities, and qualified individuals with disabilities are encouraged to apply.â€
Let’s hope that wasn’t written by someone in the English department unless they really meant to say that the qualifications of women and minorities aren’t considered.
Winning a flawed book? No thanks :).
That’s the spirit, Luis! Never read books with which you disagree.
Well, on a second, more careful reading, it merely says that discrimination on the basis of “genetic information” is prohibited.
I wonder if it’s a New York thing…
Northeast Parent & Child Society
http://www.workatnortheast.org/HRMicrosite/careerOpportunities.aspx
Northeast Parent and Child Society, Inc., as an Equal Opportunity Employer, does not discriminate in its hiring or employment practices on the basis of gender, race or ethnicity, color, national origin, religion, age, disability, military or marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, domestic violence victim status, predisposing genetic characteristics or prior arrest or conviction record or any other category protected by applicable federal, state, or local laws.
Eric,
Our first entry! And it’s a tie.
You might be right about it being a state thing. That means the winner will almost certainly come from California. Get searching, everybody!
I count this as 17. Tie. Oxford. http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/eop/recruitmentmonitoring/recruitmentcodepractice/
Job qualifications or requirements which would have the effect of inhibiting applications from individuals possessing one or more protected characteristic as defined by the Equality Act 2010 (namely age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation) will not be demanded or imposed except where they are justifiable in terms of the job to be done, and this will be made clear in the advertisement and/or further particulars.
(For the purposes of this code, “racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality, or ethnic or national origins.)
Here’s one from Calpers
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/career/eeo-policy.pdf
It is CalPERS policy to provide employment, career development, advancement, and assignment opportunity at all occupational levels based on merit, efficiency and fitness. CalPERS will endeavor to maintain a work environment that is free of discrimination based on age, sex, ancestry, color, marital status, medical condition, pregnancy, national origin,
veteran status, physical or mental disability, denial of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act or the California Family Rights Acts, political affiliation, race, religious creed, gender, or sexual orientation.
At other sites, under veteran status, you can see references to not discriminating towards Vietnam War vets…
Looks to me that the answer is to trawl through the 50 states and see what’s what. I did a few other states (VT, MA, PA) and didn’t see anything much more than the above.
Here’s one from Wyoming:
http://www.wyomingstatebank.com/about/employment-opportunities/
Persons seeking employment with Wyoming State Bank shall be considered without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation or political belief.
And the Federal Government:
https://help.usajobs.gov/index.php/EEO_Policy_Statement
The United States Government does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, retaliation, parental status, military service, or other non-merit factor.
The one thing that is not listen on there is a very specific exemption granted.
An employer can without any worry of legal action (although the hooters case may start to edge this out), say to you “You are white man, get the F out, I will not hire white men, I don’t care what you bring to the table!”
Even though it says “gender” in that list.
Here you are Briggs, if anxiety about being fired can be a disability then surely anxiety about being hired must be as well.
http://www.cato.org/blog/court-anxiety-about-getting-fired-can-be-ada-disability
Scotian,
Disability for everybody!
Having a mouth that projectile vomits Truth and Reason can be serious handicap Briggs! No way to get a job, surely. To quote Ayn Rand “One does not stop the juggernaut by throwing oneself in front of it…”
Cheers
Francsois
The only thing missing is any consideration of what to do when we run out of adults, i.e. the people who do all the accommodating. See the appropriate Aesop fable.
Of course, to stand a chance you have to go to the experts. Like the University of California, Berkeley:
The University of California prohibits discrimination against or harassment of any person employed by or seeking employment with the University on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender [1], gender expression [2], gender identity [3], pregnancy [4], physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), genetic information (including family medical history), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or service in the uniformed services (as defined by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994).
….
[1] Gender refers to the sex of a person, including a person’s gender identity, and gender expression.
[2] Gender expression refers to a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.
[3] Gender identity refers to an individual’s personal sense of himself/herself as being male and masculine or female and feminine, or ambivalent.
[4] Pregnancy includes pregnancy, childbirth, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.
[5] Service in the uniformed services includes membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed services.
http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/diversity/resources/nondiscrimination-statement
So this seems to be 19 (distinguishing physical and mental abilities, and not counting the subcategories in the footnotes). But the footnotes are so confusing it looks like they were just throwing in any word they could think of, since we have sex, then gender (which the footnote says is sex including gender identity and expression), then gender identity, then gender expression. I think the idea is supposed to be that sex differs from gender in that gender is sex plus identity and expression, and gender identity and gender expression are added to cover cases that are not due to the sex of a person. So it’s nineteen if you interpret them as saying that; but maybe not.
On the other hand, they actually go through the trouble of footnoting their statement, which is impressive.
Thank you, Brandon, for restoring our faith in the great, late stets of California. Sorta gives one a lump in the throat.
Saying that you don’t discriminate doesn’t make it so.
All,
I confirm Brandon Watson’s 19. 19 is the number now to beat. Good work, Brandon. You are free to enter again, of course, if you find another entry. I agree about the ambiguity of the footnotes, so I don’t count them. Though in a tie, these will work in your favor.
You still have 6 days, so don’t give up hope. California was the natural place to look. But how about certain universities around London or Sydney?
Briggs,
Looks like 21 or 22.
Though they do allow discriminatory acts, if they benefit the college.
Elizabethtown College
Elizabethtown College does not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, color, religion, creed, age, marital status, disability, military membership or veteran status, national or ethnic origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, possession of a general education development certificate as compared to a high school diploma, pregnancy, citizenship, genetic information, political ideology, or any other trait or characteristic protected by any applicable Federal, state or local law or ordinance or legally protected status in hiring and promotion, in the administration of its educational programs and policies, scholarship and loan programs, and athletic or other College administered programs, except as such conditions may constitute bona fide occupational or assignment qualifications. Discriminatory acts of any kind are strictly forbidden.
All,
I confirm 21. 21 is now the number to beat. And from Pennsylvania! Good job, Jim.
“military or marital status”
For a while, I was thinking these were the same thing. Darned bifocals.
Does Canada count? This one would seem to be between 19 and 21 depending on how you count:
Discrimination against, or harassment of, any employee, group of employees, student or group of students, on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed (religion), sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offenses, marital status, family status, the receipt of public assistance in the area of housing accommodation, mental or phsical disability, union or non-union membership, political affiliation, and student/staff/faculty associations defeats this objective and will not be tolerated by the College.
http://www.senecacollege.ca/ce/info/policies/discrimination-harassment.html
Sorry, I mean 23 not 21.
University of Sydney is no slouch with 18 or so http://sydney.edu.au/eeo/docs/Final_EEOAA_Plan_010212.pdf
race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, ethno-religious and religious background
or belief;
b. political belief;
c. sex;
d. marital status;
e. pregnancy or potential pregnancy;
f. disability;
g. age;
h. sexual preference;
i. transgender status; or
j. carer’s and/or family responsibilities
Cheers
Francsois
I don’t know how to count these, but from Victoria University in Melbourne:
The University undertakes to ensure the elimination of discrimination and harassment on the
basis of the following attributes:
• race, colour, national or ethnic origin, descent, nationality;
• sex, gender identity, lawful sexual activity, sexual orientation;
• marital status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding, family responsibilities,
status as a parent or carer;
• religious or political belief or activity, industrial activity, irrelevant criminal record; age,
physical features, disability (past, present or imputed), medical record; and
• personal association with a person who is identified by reference to any of the above listed
attributes.
The University’s policy should be interpreted to include all attributes protected by Commonwealth and State anti-discrimination legislation.
http://wcf.vu.edu.au/GovernancePolicy/PDF/POE091214001.PDF
All,
I’ll examine the new entries later today.
All,
Congratulations Richard. 23 is now the number to beat.
Since Richard’s was a difficult one, here’s the way I scored it:
[1] race, [2] colour, [3] national or ethnic origin, [4] descent, [5] nationality;
[6] sex, [7] gender identity, [8] lawful sexual activity, [9] sexual orientation;
[10] marital status, [11] pregnancy or potential pregnancy, [12] breastfeeding, [13] family responsibilities,
[14] status as a parent or carer;
[15] religious or [16] political belief or activity, [17] industrial activity, [18] irrelevant criminal record; [19] age,
[20] physical features, [21] disability (past, present or imputed), [22] medical record; and
[23] personal association with a person who is identified by reference to any of the above listed
attributes.
Reminder: Any English-speaking university/college counts.
Patric,
I make this 19. Maybe 20 if that last entry counts.
“Discrimination against, or harassment of, any employee, group of employees, student or group of students, on the basis of [1] race, [2] ancestry, [3] place of origin, [4] colour, [5] ethnic origin, [6] citizenship, [7] creed (religion), [8] sex, [9] sexual orientation, [10] age, [11] record of offenses, [12] marital status, [13] family status, [14] the receipt of public assistance in the area of housing accommodation, [15] mental or [16] phsical disability, [17] union or [18] non-union membership, [19] political affiliation, and [20?] student/staff/faculty associations defeats this objective and will not be tolerated by the College.”
I am certainly thankful that I will be discriminated against because I have personal associations with women who have the potential to become pregnant.
I admit defeat. But I should get something for this from Antioch College in Ohio … “visible or invisible disability” …
Antioch
The next task is to list all the stated classes. Now, when I see a policy with only 14 or 15 classes, I think they are written by pikers.