Economists Have An Interesting Argument

InsideHigherEd reports this morning that the American Economic Association changed the wording of a job notice submitted by the University of Vermont. The offending words that were removed? That the university “welcomes applications from women and underrepresented ethnic, racial and cultural groups and from people with disabilities.”

Those words never made it into the economics group’s job notice list because they were deemed discriminatory by the association….

“It’s ironic that an organization that believes in free markets is disrupting the free flow of information,” said Stephanie Seguino, associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Vermont, and until recently the economics chair there. Seguino said that it was “just wrong” for the economics association to have called her department’s notice discriminatory. She said that the economics department was trying to build a diverse pool in a field dominated by white men and that the ad did not suggest any preference in selecting finalists or making an offer, but only wanted to encourage people to come forward for consideration….

Welcoming diversity would have been OK, according to the economics association — the university just couldn’t welcome any particular kind of diversity.

John J. Siegfried, an economist at Vanderbilt University who is secretary-treasurer of the American Economic Association, said that the group’s policy was to bar any mention of any group in a job ad as discriminatory. “We have taken the position that we do not want to help anyone discriminate in any way, shape or form,” he said. So while colleges can (and do) include references to being in favor of diversity, or being equal opportunity employers, the minute they mention a group, the ad is edited to remove the relevant phrases.

Query: Should a department where Jews are seriously “overrepresented” be allowed to say, “We welcome applications from Gentiles, Muslims, Sikhs, and other underrepresented religious or cultural groups”? Should it, for that matter, be legal for that deparment to “take religion into account” and give a hiring preferences to non-Jews?

UPDATE [18 Dec.]

InsideHigherEd has more on this issue, including indications that an attorney for the EEOC has no problem with special race- and sex-specific invitations to apply.

Roger Clegg, however, believes the EEOC attorney’s views may not represent the views of the Commission itself, before which he is scheduled to testify early next year. He concludes his comment by quoting the relevant statute and asking a very good question:

[The statute] states: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to print or cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment … indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ….” Now, I ask you, if a job notice says that applications from some groups are, for instance, “especially encouraged,” can anyone seriously argue that this is not “indicating any preference”?

Say What? (2)

  1. anonymous December 13, 2006 at 1:24 pm | | Reply

    What’s funny is that in sociology, probably econ’s closest sister discipline, such “particularly welcome” phrases are standard boiler plate.

  2. David Nieporent December 18, 2006 at 5:07 pm | | Reply

    I think that’s a pretty weak argument from Clegg, actually. Applications being encouraged is not the same as preferences in hiring. (It may be the case in practice, but there’s no necessary connection.)

Say What?