- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,796
Immortalized in the quote tho, good work zed
There's a subtle difference. I can tell you're a dude, and that you occupy your weekends with straight-guy stuff (whatever the hell that means *shudder.*)explains why you were hitting on me at the beginning
nah chicks are way more sarcastic
The fact that a question might only be asked of a woman does not make it Title IX discrimination. As I've said several times, asking someone for their thoughts on the extant sexism in the field is not itself a sexist question.
There's a subtle difference. I can tell you're a dude, and that you occupy your weekends with straight-guy stuff (whatever the hell that means *shudder.*)
Wearing flip-flops?Throwing empties at the TV when a ref makes a weak pass interference call?
but did they say it was something worth reporting?So I just got back an email from a title IX administrator.
You can think I'm making it up, but I'm hesitant to quote them verbatim, or indicate what school this was.
I sent them word for word what the OP presented to us as the question.
They indicated that while there might be situations to ask such a question, they would not allow an interviewer to ask that as part of the admissions process for school.
I'm going to have to say the school title IX administrator's feeling on the matter would be game-ender on this question being permissible in admissions interviews. Adcom be damned.
If it's against their policy, seems we're in the wrong even if it's a minor offense. But I'm shocked to hear they actually find issue, can't help but wonder if they just have a blanket danger/fear policy like jl lin kept implying that makes them say absolutely no questions mentioning applicant sex/age/religion etc even if the question is not discriminatory. It is sort of their job to err on the side of safety.but did they say it was something worth reporting?
I do this a lot actually. Aquatic sport and just being a Cali kid in generalWearing flip-flops?
heh, yaThere's a subtle difference. I can tell you're a dude, and that you occupy your weekends with straight-guy stuff (whatever the hell that means *shudder.*)
I threw a shoe at my brother when his team beat mine in the Dota 2 International tournament, that's the only sports I watchThrowing empties at the TV when a ref makes a weak pass interference call?
If it's against their policy, seems we're in the wrong even if it's a minor offense. But I'm shocked to hear they actually find issue, can't help but wonder if they just have a blanket danger/fear policy like jl lin kept implying that makes them say absolutely no questions mentioning applicant sex/age/religion etc even if the question is not discriminatory. It is sort of their job to err on the side of safety.
Well, maybe not "right" as much as "seems to share their paranoia about hyper-litigious SJWs". I'd still bet the farm that no lawyer in their right mind would touch something like OP's complaint though.Surprises me as well. Jl lin was right about playing it safe.
It would be least complicated from their end to just ban all questions regarding these subjects rather than take it case by case and have a blurry confusing line that shouldn't be crossed in interviews. Agreed with you about this verging on paranoid though.Well, maybe not "right" as much as "seems to share their paranoia about hyper-litigious SJWs". I'd still bet the farm that no lawyer in their right mind would touch something like OP's complaint though.
It's definitely paranoia. I mean, it would be least complicated from their end to not have interviews at all!It would be least complicated from their end to just ban all questions regarding these subjects rather than take it case by case and have a blurry confusing line that shouldn't be crossed in interviews. Agreed with you about this verging on paranoid though.
edit: just realized this is what you said above lol.
Seriously, efle, I also posted a lot of law earlier in this thread and you basically ignored it and kept restating your own non-facts. You don't get to make the decision about whether something is a Title IX violation or not. The Department of Education issues regulatory guidance and brings investigations and actions, and courts look to this guidance and other legal precedent to determine what is a Title IX violation. While I don't get to decide either, my highly educated guess is that one could at least make out a prima facie case that if a question is being asked only of women, it is a sex discriminatory practice. Of course, the problem in this context is that interviews are so individualized that it would be nearly impossible to prove that the question was being asked only of women. But that's a separate issue.explains why you were hitting on me at the beginning
nah chicks are way more sarcastic
The fact that a question might only be asked of a woman does not make it Title IX discrimination. As I've said several times, asking someone for their thoughts on the extant sexism in the field is not itself a sexist question.
Well, maybe not "right" as much as "seems to share their paranoia about hyper-litigious SJWs". I'd still bet the farm that no lawyer in their right mind would touch something like OP's complaint though.
How on earth does a question being appropriate for subpopulations make it inherently descriminatory? Is it wrong to ask non trads what their additional life experiences in the last decade brings to the table since that wouldn't be asked of a 21 year old? And a school policy being "don't touch that with a ten foot pole" doesn't mean all questions around the subject are a Title IX violation, it means a subset are and the school wants to take extremes to be protectedSeriously, efle, I also posted a lot of law earlier in this thread and you basically ignored it and kept restating your own non-facts. You don't get to make the decision about whether something is a Title IX violation or not. The Department of Education issues regulatory guidance and brings investigations and actions, and courts look to this guidance and other legal precedent to determine what is a Title IX violation. While I don't get to decide either, my highly educated guess is that one could at least make out a prima facie case that if a question is being asked only of women, it is a sex discriminatory practice. Of course, the problem in this context is that interviews are so individualized that it would be nearly impossible to prove that the question was being asked only of women. But that's a separate issue.
Edited to add: Sorry, just saw that crayola posted something very definitive.
what happened to donna?!!It's definitely paranoia. I mean, it would be least complicated from their end to not have interviews at all!
"On Wednesdays we wear pink" -Tulane Plastics 2016what happened to donna?!!
haha it's the same for any long time member who changes their avatar-- can't recognize them anymore@Glazedonutlove and @Gandy741 she'll be back tomorrow. I can't have my avatar changed for too long or I get bombarded with notifications from outraged fellow SDNers 😆
Never thought my avatar choice would matter so much!
haha it's the same for any long time member who changes their avatar-- can't recognize them anymore
I just realized I'm the one who always gets threads off topic lol... this is why I can't study with people
same. What's happened to meI really should spend less of my time at work on SDN more time....working.
I don't actually have any work to do. I supposed I could write my last two secondaries......nah.same. What's happened to me
so over secondariesI don't actually have any work to do. I supposed I could write my last two secondaries......nah.
so over secondaries
I was talking to a friend today who hasn't started them because he was on vacation...
The very fact that you see it as "appropriate for subpopulations" proves my point. The fact is, how sexism in medicine affects us is a question for everyone, male or female. Similarly, the question of how additional life experience affects a candidate's suitability is a legitimate question for anyone, young or old. One of the doctors I shadowed went to a six-year BA/MD program and entered medical school and then residency when she was very young. To boot, she'd had a pretty sheltered upbringing. She has mentioned to me how difficult it was for her to cope with patients very "adult" problems when she was so inexperienced in life, and thus I think this is a legitimate question for everyone. What I am saying is that the problem here is not with asking about sexism, it's about posing the question in a way that makes it about the interviewee's being female (and probably only asking women about this).How on earth does a question being appropriate for subpopulations make it inherently descriminatory? Is it wrong to ask non trads what their additional life experiences in the last decade brings to the table since that wouldn't be asked of a 21 year old? And a school policy being "don't touch that with a ten foot pole" doesn't mean all questions around the subject are a Title IX violation, it means a subset are and the school wants to take extremes to be protected
And your posts earlier, as I mentioned then, were adressed to a different issue. Recognizing a general imbalance in hiring/admissions and telling them to fix it is not the same as finding any question about sexism or racism to be inherently sexist or racist
it's about posing the question in a way that makes it about the interviewee's being female (and probably only asking women about this)
Not sure what you are trying to say. I'm guessing it's some lame attempt at satire or sarcasm but it doesn't seem like it has much relationship to what I said.If my interviewer dare asks me about my ethnicity/heritage, I'll sue 'em. Cause they definitely wouldn't ask a white dude that.
How dare someone assume I'm not white just based on my skin color!
You're right, it's way too reasonable to be related to your post.I'm guessing it's some lame attempt at satire or sarcasm but it doesn't seem like it has much relationship to what I said.
but actually, there are people who get offended by it if they are 2nd+ generation
I know, but it is hard for others to tell and they might just be curious/interested. I personally never felt like they were telling me I wasn't american or something.I mean it can be offensive. I was born in America, not Asia. I'm not a "foreigner" and if I am that makes every single person a 'foreigner" in the United States except for 100 percent blooded Native Americans.
I know, but it is hard for others to tell and they might just be curious/interested. I personally never felt like they were telling me I wasn't american or something.
to be clear, I was stating that it can indeed be offensive for many to ask them where they are from--wasn't saying they shouldn't be offendedI guess when you live in the Midwest, you start becoming sensitive to racism. I've had to deal with it a lot in the Midwest.
to be clear, I was stating that it can indeed be offensive for many to ask them where they are from--wasn't saying they shouldn't be offended
You're absolutely right - I'd have zero issue with such a question about sexism or racism also being asked of a male or white, because it is a completely non-discriminatory question for anyone. But it's nonsense to claim that actually being a part of the minority and thus much more sensitive to and impacted by the -ism does not change the relevancy of the topic. Same as asking about views on healthcare is fair game for anyone but especially relevant and appropriate to people with degrees in econ and public policy etc.The very fact that you see it as "appropriate for subpopulations" proves my point. The fact is, how sexism in medicine affects us is a question for everyone, male or female. Similarly, the question of how additional life experience affects a candidate's suitability is a legitimate question for anyone, young or old. One of the doctors I shadowed went to a six-year BA/MD program and entered medical school and then residency when she was very young. To boot, she'd had a pretty sheltered upbringing. She has mentioned to me how difficult it was for her to cope with patients very "adult" problems when she was so inexperienced in life, and thus I think this is a legitimate question for everyone. What I am saying is that the problem here is not with asking about sexism, it's about posing the question in a way that makes it about the interviewee's being female (and probably only asking women about this).
With respect to "recognizing a general imbalance" (I think earlier you referred to promoting diversity in hiring) not being the same as finding a question to be inherently sexist or racist ... you are so missing the point it's not even funny (and before it was just so irritating that I stopped responding). I was talking about the fact that the law does, at times, view facially neutral practices with discriminatory impact to be illegal discrimination--the intent of the employer/school does not matter. The argument is that if such a practice CAN constitute illegal discrimination, you cannot simply issue a fiat that a question is or isn't sexist, or that intent is all that matters. And more fundamentally, you can't make pseudo-legal arguments (about murder and hate crimes) that don't even rely on correct law to support your point ... and as Axes has noted, the argument is in large part about what is morally and socially just, not what is legal.
Come on, it should've been pretty obvious that the Title IX people would say not to ask the question. They're always going to err on the side of caution for this stuff, it's their job. I would have been shocked if they said that a question with little context that's as ambiguously worded as that was okay. I'd be more interested in knowing if they felt OP should report it.
I'd also be interested to know how they would feel about asking a candidate how they would deal with discrimination. A question like: "Sometimes women in medicine face discrimination in the workplace from patients or even co-workers just because of their sex. How would you address a situation in which a patient was making sexist remarks or acting sexist toward you? What would you do if it was a coworker?" I'm curious because while it does touch on the whole sex/gender issue (which is obviously still relevant in medicine since some female docs are mistaken for nurses), the point of the question is to gauge professionalism.
share ur views rachOmg this thread is still going? Yes! Something to read for fun at work tomorrow![]()
In what way does minority imply inferiority?Right, but why bring up that disparity in the first place? By asking that question, you've indirectly established that they are in fact inferior.
mostly bored. is it weird that I am looking forward to mmi more than regular interviews.Y'all are petty.
inferiority in terms of earnings, respect, acceptance