[AISWorld] [External] [EXT] Re: [External] Hiring Professor (Female Only) in Information Systems and Technology Management, UNSW Sydney

[Hamed M. Zolbanin]

I tried very hard to not engage in this conversation, but unfortunately,
the arguments have taken a turn that I cannot resist anymore. Everyone
posting to this thread has mentioned a thing or two about their background
and how that shaped their stance on this topic. I have my background too,
and that too makes me want to share my piece. I apologize if it is not
pleasing to some of you.

I grew up under a theocratic regime that has forever mixed ideology with
facts and facts with ideology to bewilder the people and convolute the
arguments, to the extent that a majority of people suffered from the
"Stockholm Syndrome" before the ubiquity of the Internet (which is also
filtered heavily). When I see that arguments are mixed up to pursue certain
policies or doctrines, I feel the urge to speak up. I don't mean this was
done on purpose, but I think the outcomes are fairly the same. Again, I
apologize.

Regarding the position in UNSW, while the university has followed all the
legal steps to justify this extraordinary situation, and while they have
all the rights to hire whoever they would like based on their needs,
promoting their action as one of "justice restoration" or "fighting
inequality" is utterly wrong (IMHO). What UNSW is doing is "solving their
problem easily and immediately." As Prof. Tan said, they have one of the
highest balance ratios I have ever seen in any academic department; this is
not about inequality and justice, it is about taking some load off of a
senior faculty's shoulders. It makes me sick when I see some people dig up
the history of men's cruelty to women (which was true until recently but
not anymore, at least in the West) whenever they get a chance.

I have worked with many female colleagues over the past 10 years of my
academic life. I cannot remember any single case where that female faculty
was hired because they were female. While exceptions may exist, I do
believe that our female colleagues are equally as competent as males, and
some of them are among the best in our field. Take the top 9 journals of
the field (basket and DSS). At least 3 of these journals have a female EiC
or Co-EiC. ISR had a female EiC for a long time. None of them were
appointed to those positions because they were female; it was because they
all were competent and accomplished. So, seeing that someone said they
wished women were competent in 2022 to render such gender discriminations
unnecessary is irritating to me.

One of the main points of argument in this thread has been the issue of men
being advantaged for such a long time, and women and minority groups being
disadvantaged throughout history. There is no doubt about this. The problem
arises when you mix this fact with some other things and try to justify
that it is just to restore justice with injustice. Maybe we need to dig a
bit deeper into the fact that gender differences are real; they are not
made up solely by men trying to steal everything from women. If we truly
believe in equality between men and women in all aspects, according to
Jordan Peterson, why are we only considering the "C-suite"? According to
him, men are more likely to be imprisoned; die in wars, in work-related
accidents, or from stress; they are more likely to work outdoors and for
longer hours, and so on. Around 99 percent of bricklayers, as he puts it,
are men. Why do those who promote gender equality not try to equalize the
number of women in prison? Over the past five decades, at least in the
western world, women have had the opportunity to take on many roles that
had traditionally been considered masculine. If some of us do not see the
proportion of females in academia that would serve justice in our minds,
that is not because men are still stealing the positions from women; it is
because gender differences are real; that is, women self-select to not
pursue academic positions, or employment in general, as much as men do.
Whether this is good or bad, or should/can be changed is a different story,
which falls beyond the IS jurisdiction (and to the jurisdiction of
families, governments, primary schools, and women themselves). That means,
if UNSW hires 11 females while they have 13 male faculty, although they are
creating an exemplary balance between the genders, they are depriving some
of the lower status universities from having even a single female faculty;
thereby, pouring more fuel to the discussion of gender injustice in
academia. The solution? Hire as many females as the real ratio is and let
most universities have some female faculty to serve as a role model for
female students to look up to. I am sure that will help much more in
improving the gender imbalance than such short-time and immediate solutions.

One other thing I think I should talk about is restoring justice. One of us
brought an example of Nazis and the artworks that should be taken from
their heirs because those artifacts were stolen from others. As terrible
and disgusting as Nazis were, they have given the western hemisphere the
gift of "the last bad example everyone can remember." Anyone who wants to
say something as the last word and shut the mouths, resorts to the crimes
committed by Nazis. It is true that Nazis were a true example of evil; but
most of the things they did has happend throughout the history to various
groups and minorities. Similar or worse kinds of crimes had happend by
colonists long before Nazis came into existence. Take Africa, the Indian
subcontinent, and all the "new world". The bones of little Australian
aboriginals and Canadian Natives are still dug up from the so-called school
backyards. Please serve justice to all minorities by acknowledging all the
crimes the White Man has done throughout history, not only those that Nazis
did to other White Men.

Finally, If taking stolen artwork from the heirs of Nazis and returning
them to the heirs of the true owners is justice (and I don't say that it is
not), then following the same line of reasoning, I guess it is just to say
that Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals have the right to ask that
the lands of their ancestors be taken from the heirs of the colonists and
all the colonists be repatriated to where their ancestors came from. This
last argument of mine will infuriate many of us, but the one against the
Nazis didn't because it was about the Nazis and it didn't apply to us. If
we truly want to serve justice or help in serving it, we must act now, not
tomorrow or not when what we have inherited is taken from us by force. I
apologize if this is a bit too harsh, but "it is very easy to be ready to
die after we are already dead."

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:53 AM wombat <c.conway at ieseg.fr> wrote:

> On 6/12/22 22:43, Michael Cuellar wrote:
> > The answer is of course it isn’t just to do so.
> >
>
> I disagree. It depends on what meaning of "justice" you are using.
>
> Most people would agree that restoring looted Nazi artworks to the heirs
> of the art's original owner is just. In this case, "just" is being used
> in the sense of "restorative justice". The work has value which was
> taken from the heirs, and even though the current owner did not steal
> the work (in most cases), we agree that they should not be able to
> continue to profit from the old crime. In general, we recognize this in
> law-- a stolen item can always be taken from its current owner and
> returned to the original owner, without compensation to the current
> owner, whether they were involved in the crime or not.
>
> Does this harm an innocent party? Many times, yes. They can seek
> recompense from who they got it from, and so on up the chain, until
> (ideally) the person who committed the crime is actually the one taking
> the loss. However, this only happens rarely.
>
> This is the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine.
>
> This applies to things like hiring. Status, position, and a good salary
> are also things, and things which can be stolen-- and, historically have
> been, from women, people of color, non-gender conforming people,
> "others" of many stripes. By taking the position from those who have
> benefited from the ancient crime and returning it to the heirs of the
> victim of the crime (more metaphorical heirs in the case, but
> nonetheless heirs of the privileges), we are engaging in restorative
> justice.
>
> Whether you recognize it or not, as a member of a less-disadvantaged
> group (men), you benefit from the crimes your predecessors committed. It
> is, unfair, in a way, in that you did not commit the crime-- yet you
> continue to benefit from the crime. Even without being able to apply for
> this position, you *still* continue to benefit from the crime in all the
> other open positions; your privileges have not been completely taken
> away, only a small piece of them for one position. You still owe.
>
> "Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime
> oublié, parce qu’il a été proprement fait." (Honoré de Balzac, in “Le
> Père Goriot”)
>
> I should point out-- I am a white male. My father was an upper-middle
> class professor. I benefit greatly from that background. Maybe not as
> greatly as the Walton children, but nonetheless I, too, am the
> benefactor of privilege I don't deserve. In fact, in some ways I'm
> worse-- my great grandfather was a plantation owner in Tennessee. When
> reparations are finally made to the people of color in the US, I will
> owe. Probably a lot, and probably a lot more than I have. But I'll pay
> it, somehow, eventually; because it is *just*.
>
> Christopher M. Conway Ph.D. also known on the net as wombat since 1986.
> Computer scientist, software engineer, social psychologist, musician,
> statistician, amateur philosopher, polymath.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org
>


-- 
Best Regards,

Hamed M. Zolbanin