12 Responses to “Male proves gender bias — and loses case”

1. Jason McKahan Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 10:04 am

   I’m not particularly fond of frivolous “reverse bias” cases, but if the Dybas had proof that gender bias occured in the hiring process, it is totally irrelevant whether or not the college would not have considered him without having a terminal degree.

2. egghead1 Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 11:15 am

   I disagree with Jason. The candidate must qualify for the position he is applying for. Bias becomes an issue when a less qualified candidate is chosen over a qualified one. Or when there are two qualified candidates and one is chosen based on the hiring agent’s personal preferences (race, sex, religion, etc.).

   In this case, if Dybas had been hired for either position, ALL other candidates would have been able to sued the school for bias. This is because he is clearly unqualified for the position and more qualified candidates were passed over for this doofus.

   Dybas filed a nuisance lawsuit. I hope he is forced to pay for all court costs & lawyer fees for it for both parties.

3. Schmidtt Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 11:19 am

   Jason, think of it this way: If a high-school dropout applied for a brain surgeon position at a hospital, would you want him operating on you? After all, according to your logic, the hospital would have to hire him or else it was biasd. In your world, the fact that he is clearly unqualified does not factor into it. Personally, I want a brain surgeon who went to college and medical school, survived residency and everything else a brain surgeon must do to get hired by a good hospital. And I want the hospital to check every detail of his resume during the hiring process, not ten years later when the high number of malpractice suits causes the insurance company to raise rates.

4. sue Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 11:29 am

   Jason — as a female who investigated suing for discrimination, I can tell you that it does in fact matter. A person can only successfully sue for something that they can prove they personally suffered a direct economic loss because of gender or race or ethnicity or religion or disability. You cannot sue on behalf of others. If you would not have qualified for a position on other grounds, you cannot sue for loss of the position on grounds of discrimination. If a position requires a specific credential (regardless of what that credential is), and a person does not have that credential they are not qualified for the job, and cannot sue no matter how much bias may have been used against others. Other who were qualified could sue, but clearly did not do so in this case.

5. Moore Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 11:39 am

   Dybas might have had a stronger position if the person hired was no better qualified than he was.

6. Jason McKahan Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

   As I suggested, I’m wholly committed to diversity in the university community. In fact, I know that some hiring practices actually seek to ameliorate past social injustices. As Thurgood argued in the case of race: “A profound difference separates governmental actions that themselves are racist, and governmental actions that seek to remedy the effects of prior racism or to prevent neutral government activity from perpetuaing the effects of such racism.” However, arbitrary policies made by university officials which may result in potential injustices and the limitation of life chances to faculty members should not be taken lightly.

   Sorry, but I think everyone is missing a point here. If an employer goes on the record as saying he only hires Caucasian or male employees, I highly doubt anyone would consider that a fair basis of selection. One cannot clearly show evidence of sexual discrimination, and then just move the ball and say the justification was in fact, merely qualifications.

   It is not by my logic whatsoever, that “the hospital would have to hire [a high-school dropout as a brain surgeon] or else it was biased.” That seams a false analogy. It’s not like the dean made a selection purely on the basis of educational accomplishment. Quite the contrary, it was demonstrated that there was sexual discrimination. So that does not mean that an unqualified candidate should be selected, but it does indeed mean that the hiring practices of said university need to be scrutinized. I surely hope that someone can see the reasoning in that.

7. Jason McKahan Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

   Oh sorry, that was Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

8. Larry Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 4:25 pm

   Jason – you indicate MSU limited the life chance of a faculty member. You have to accept the fact that Dybas wasn’t qualified for the positions for which he applied. His gender was immaterial to the fact that he didn’t meet the minimum qualifications for the position. Perhaps, someone who met those minimum qualifications and who didn’t get selected might make an argument for gender descrimination but that didn’t happen. MSU didn’t limit Dybas’ life chances, Dybas did. If he wanted to be considered for a tenure track position (and since he was already on the MSU faculty he should have known this), he needed a terminal degree. He didn’t have one and should have been dropped from the candidate pool at the first cut.

9. Steve Says:
   August 26th, 2009 at 4:47 pm

   If an applicant who does hold the minimal degree requirement now sued MSU, wouldn’t they have a strong case to win damages? If the dean was biased in evaluating applications, then all qualified applicants should have a case.

   Even if so, I don’t understand the principle here. My university’s position searches are carefully worded to emphasize that there will be no gender, racial, other protected status bias against applicants. It doesn’t say that only applicants who meet minimum standards will be so protected, nor only those making the short list, nor only those whose applications reach the review level where the bias exists.

10. joshsmart Says:
    October 14th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    Qualification is not always a determined factor. I have seenmy institution hired someone with a high school degree for a position that requires a master’s. The hiring dean usually can get away from murder if he or she prefers a specific candidate, especially in a private institution.

11. James Says:
    February 23rd, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    This is the most salient line in the article:
    “The school conceded that a dean who was involved in the hiring process had shown a preference for female candidates.”

    What steps has the school taken to address this issue? If the school conceded this fact, there must have been *other* evidence of this nature. In which case previously rejected candidates should be informed and allowed to weigh their options.

    The question of whether the candidate in question was qualified should not necessarily be at the heart of the matter.

12. Earl Says:
    March 29th, 2010 at 11:48 am

    All this means is that the NEXT male who IS qualified and doesn’t get hired by this dean has a great case, because there’s already a finding in place. The college would be idiotic not to address this issue.

    However, if the candidate didn’t meet the minimum qualifications, he shouldn’t be considered regardless of his gender. He has a case ONLY if it’s demonstrable that other candidates who failed to meat the minimum requirements were considered and he was not. Otherwise, he has no standing to file suit — and in a court, if you don’t have the standing to bring the complaint, it just doesn’t matter how blatant or damaging the wrong was, it won’t be righted until someone with standing brings the issue to the court.

Leave a Reply