So not 50/50 but just some diversityā¦which is what they have now.
I dont have any problem with diversity, so long as it is achieved by merit alone. If there are no barriers to entry and progress, which there might well be, then everything else should fall into place. Iād prefer them to look at why women arenāt getting into these positions and, if they determine it to be a problem, then deal with it, rather than just conjure up new women-only positions
My point was that seeking a 50/50 gender breakdown in any field is almost unnatural as so many jobs tend to be favoured by either of the genders.
I think the measure is supposed to be on 50% of new positions, isnāt it?
This article here gives an account of some promotion competitions that went in NUIG that came out the wrong end of high court decisions. This example would suggest to me that there are barriers and that women have been overlooked for promotion despite being stronger on merit.
I think the measure is supposed to be on 50% of new positions, isnāt it?
could I realistically challenge in the high courts if I was an equal or stronger candidate than a woman who applied but she got the role to fill a quota?
does having roles for genders not fly in the face of equality in the first place?
It would suggest there are barriers yes, at least at NUIG.
I dont see how how creating these roles exclusively for women will change that, and I dont see how interviewers in these universities can be fully impartial and judge applicants on their merit if they have to also meet gender quotas.
Weāre talking about new positions. So if a university creates two new lecturer positions, one must go to a woman, how can anyone really have a problem with that?
What if the women who applied are sub standard and three men turned down are far more accomplished and perfect for the job? This creates as much division as the old system as people will naturally hold the view that they only got the job for having tits and a fanny.
