university faculties. The INDIVIDUAL male who ~ may lose a job toa less qualified woman has abso- lutely nothing to do with the low numbers of women on faculties. YET IT IS THIS MALE WHOIS PUNISHED FOR THIS CRIME OF THE PAST (as we shall soon see, the far past). If some of the male politically correct professors at UPEI

really want to make up for past hiring discrepancies, then they should step down and give their jobs to ‘‘oppressed’’ women--instead of punish- ing males who had nothing to do with this discrimina-

tion of the past.

If the previously mentioned points have not destroyed the legitimacy of affirmative action programmes directed at university faculties, the numbers found in a recent study on faculty hiring at Canadian universi- ties by A.D. Irvine does (‘‘Jack & Jill & Employment Equity’’ (1991)). :

Irvine’s analysis of Statistics Canada data found First, if discrimination is occurring within contempo- rary university hiring, itis much more likely to be occurring in favour of rather than against women. Second, itappears that significant discrimination against women (as women) has not appeared in uni- versity hiring for at least twenty years [long before most affirmative action programmes for women were employed]. And third, since the evidence appears to indicate that contemporary discrimination against men is much more widespread than was previous discrimi- nation against women, these results are much more difficult to account for by non-discriminatory factors. The figures in the below table help illustrate these FACTS.

Comparison of the

| Percentage of Women as Full-Time University Teachers with the Percentage of Women Estimated to be Applicants for Full-Time University Teaching Positions

| in Canada by 1986-87 Rank

| Full Prof, Assoc Prof, Assist Prof, Lecturertt Other

| (1964-66) (1970-72) (1978-80) (1980-82) (1972-74) F & of Appowiments 6.4% 16.4% 29.3% 45.0% 38.5% F % of Applicants 9.7% 9.35% 20.45% 24.0% 11.0%

— 2 —_

Or rank next below assutant professor

SS _—

i a Percentage of Full-Time University Teachers in Canada in 1986-87 by Rank, Highest Earned Degree & Sex’ Full Prof Assoc Prof Assist Prof Lecturer®’ = Other Total M F M F M F M F M F M F Doctorate BO.2ETIB2E S91EGOIKE S61K47.7R 143%89.3% 23.9815. 1% 685% 48.9% Masters 10.6% 14.7% 19.2%31.1% WIEWOT S66K52BR SOMBIE 18.8% 34.4% Professional 5.8% 2.4% 6.6% 3.2% 115% 75% S51 4.2% 12% O8% 69% 44% Bachelor 2.6% 35% 35% 43% 46% 6.3% 18.1%242% 17583.7% 42% 94E Other O.8% 1.3% 15% 13% 26% 25% 58H 95H 65% 52% 1.7% 2.9% + Calculated from figures given in Statistics Canada. Teachers in Universities: 1986-87. Catalogue No. 81-241. Ottawa: Minster of Supply & Services Cansda. 1990). pp. 30f. tt Or rank next below assistant professor.

’ This discrepancy in

_ hiring cannot be accounted for by higher qualifica- tions held by women as the below statistical FACTS illustrate that women faculty members, in general (not onan INDIVIDUAL basis), hold lower degrees than their male contemporaries.

Bee etre

Apparently, with the discovery of sucha reality concerning university hiring, affirmative action is not justified on the basis to eliminate discrimination against women inthe hiring process. If anything, affirmative action pro- grammes should be implemented to help males (just kidding, the editors of this column don’t believe in discriminatory hiring practices).

And finally, in regards to the university environment being alienating to female students because ofa lack of female professors, the following numbers uncov- ered by Irvine display the opposite:

Comparison of the Percentage of Women as Full-Time Graduate Students with the Percentage of Women as Graduate Degree Recipients | in Canada from 1965 to 1985" |

1

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 F % of Enrollments 16.8% 205% 27.3% 35.3% > -38.6% F & of Graduates 17.9% 19.8% 26.4% 35.7% 40.2%

|* Calculated from figures given in Statistics Canada. Educanon in Canada 1973: A Stansncal Review for 1960-6 1 to 1970-71, (Ottawa: Information Canada. 1973). pp 151. 167; Staustics Canada, Education m Canada 1980 A Stanstical Review for 1979-80, Catalogue No. 81-229, (Ottawa. Minister of Supply & Services Canada. 1981), pp. 59. 69f, Statistics Canada, Education in Canada /984. A Stansncal Review for 1983-84. Catalogue No. 81- 229, (Onawa: Minster of Supply & Services Canada. 1985), pp. $4, 65, Statistics Canada, Educanon w Canada: A Statistical Review for 1987-88, Catalogue No. 81-229, (Ottawa: Minuter of Supply & Services Canada. 1989),

pp. 97, 181. 185

——

Comparison of the Percentage of Women as Full-Time Undergraduates with the Percentage of Women as Baccalaureate Recipients iz Canada from 1965 to 1985°

1965 1270 1975 1980 i285 F % of Enrollments 30.8% 16.7% 411% 455% 48.2% F % of Graduates 10.8% IRIE 44.4% 49 6% $1.9%

Stanstical Review for 1979-80, Catalogue No 61-229, (Ottawa Minister of Supply & Services Canada. 1981). 229, (Ottawa Minuter of Supply & Services Canada, 1985), pp $3, 64. Statistics Canada, Kducanon m Canada.

pp 87, 171

We see here that females tend to graduate with a higher success rate than do males. Evenas far back as 1926, women constituted 21.2% ofall university undergraduates, yet accounted for 26% of all graduating students. This hardly

January 23, 1992

* Calculated from figures given in Statisuce Canada, Education in Canada 1973 A Sansncal Review for 1960-46] i to 1970-71. \Oviawa Informauon Canada. 1973). pp. 1601, 166, Staustics Canada, Educanon m Canada (980 A

pp 58. 68, Staustics Canada, Educanom in Canada 1984 A Stansnical Review for ]983-84, Caulogue No $1.

A Statuncal Review for 1987-84. Catalogue No 81-229, (Ottawa Minister of Supply & Servwes Canada, 1989),

Page 21 |