3 ms·

I guess I've never bothered wondering about the implications of (the lack of) restrictions on giving your money away. Part of me thinks that Loyola could never

I guess I've never bothered wondering about the implications of (the lack of) restrictions on giving your money away. Part of me thinks that Loyola could never put out a want ad saying men need not apply. However, since the money is from a philanthropic program, that somehow sidesteps the process and makes it acceptable. I can see starting an endowment to open up a position, but what are the ethical and moral implications of putting restrictions on the position that run contrary to our societal norms? Could this mechanism be (ab)used by organizations that wish to be within the law but also be prejudicial about their hiring? Is this comparable to making an endowment to hire underprivileged white men only, or is this something else entirely? I think in academia, everybody is so quick to accept money that some important questions are tossed aside and controversial conversations are avoided. This may not have been thought through, or it may have been stewed over by some people in a back room. I don't know. What I do know is that I don't hear a whole lot of talking about prejudicial philanthropy these days. I'm not sure what this means. Is anybody else aware of a running (decent/scholarly/well-thought-out) conversation on this topic?

falldowngoboom 16y ago
I'm also surprised that the funding source requirement somehow makes this discrimination arms-reach and hence legal. If i was a millionaire homophobe, could i create a fund for positions that specified "no gays"?
- makmanalp 16y ago
  Well, the harder question to answer is if you have some money, why is giving it solely to certain groups offensive and certain other groups not? Why would no one get angry if, say, the applications were limited to professors from the area? Or professors above a certain age? If I choose to never give my money to strangers, should strangers be offended? Should they be allowed to legally retaliate? I understand that in a situation like "no gays" it offends that certain group of people and is discriminatory, but on the other hand, why does the government get to say at all who you should or shouldn't give your money to? It seems like if person X owns thing Y, then they should decide what to do with it, and no one else is entitled to Y (or a chance at getting Y) other than X. I guess the same goes for employment too. I think discrimination is stupid and the hiring process should be a meritocracy. On the other hand, if I own a business, what business is it of others telling me who I should and should not hire? I'm genuinely in a moral dilemma here, and I don't know the answer. Any thoughts?
  - carbocation 16y ago
    Rand Paul has brought up analogous points. As a matter of intellectual discussion, of course, it's all fair game. As a matter of current, on-the-books law in the US, it's almost impossible to discuss discrimination without bringing up the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is, in particular, relevant to why an employer cannot discriminate ad lib.
- aaronbrethorst 16y ago
  If 73% of Computer Science professors were gay, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/14/doctorates http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/14/doctorates [1] [1] Yes, to be pedantic, this is not the percentage of male computer science professors, but instead the percentage of CS Ph.D. recipients in 08-09. It still does a bang-up job of indicating a discrepancy.

falldowngoboom 16y ago

I'm also surprised that the funding source requirement somehow makes this discrimination arms-reach and hence legal. If i was a millionaire homophobe, could i create a fund for positions that specified "no gays"?

makmanalp 16y ago
Well, the harder question to answer is if you have some money, why is giving it solely to certain groups offensive and certain other groups not? Why would no one get angry if, say, the applications were limited to professors from the area? Or professors above a certain age? If I choose to never give my money to strangers, should strangers be offended? Should they be allowed to legally retaliate? I understand that in a situation like "no gays" it offends that certain group of people and is discriminatory, but on the other hand, why does the government get to say at all who you should or shouldn't give your money to? It seems like if person X owns thing Y, then they should decide what to do with it, and no one else is entitled to Y (or a chance at getting Y) other than X. I guess the same goes for employment too. I think discrimination is stupid and the hiring process should be a meritocracy. On the other hand, if I own a business, what business is it of others telling me who I should and should not hire? I'm genuinely in a moral dilemma here, and I don't know the answer. Any thoughts?
- carbocation 16y ago
  Rand Paul has brought up analogous points. As a matter of intellectual discussion, of course, it's all fair game. As a matter of current, on-the-books law in the US, it's almost impossible to discuss discrimination without bringing up the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is, in particular, relevant to why an employer cannot discriminate ad lib.
aaronbrethorst 16y ago
If 73% of Computer Science professors were gay, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/14/doctorates http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/14/doctorates [1] [1] Yes, to be pedantic, this is not the percentage of male computer science professors, but instead the percentage of CS Ph.D. recipients in 08-09. It still does a bang-up job of indicating a discrepancy.