<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Feminist Philosophers]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[stoat]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/author/stoat/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Hiring and maternity&nbsp;cover]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>A somewhat ponderous post: </p>
<p>I was having a conversation the other day about the following features of academic departments, which seems deeply problematic:</p>
<p>a) In academic posts (unlike, it seems, in other jobs), when an employee takes maternity leave, it isn&#8217;t automatically the case that a replacement is hired; rather, the workload is distributed amongst colleagues in the department.<br />
b) these colleagues, then, face significant burden when a colleague takes maternity leave.<br />
c) The people who face this potential burden are involved in hiring processes. </p>
<p>To ascertain the extent of the problem, clearly we&#8217;d need to know things like:<br />
i. how pervasive is a)? I know that some departments get temporary staff to cover, others don&#8217;t.<br />
ii. it certainly seems like this *could* impact on hiring practices, to the detriment of women; how might we ascertain whether it does, and to what extent?</p>
<p>The person with whom I was discussing raises the following interesting point:<br />
&#8220;One thing it struck me about the policy: the lower the proportion of women already in the department you&#8217;re applying to, the less likely this factor is to adversely affect your chances; does that make it a form of discrimination that is undercut by other forms?&#8221;</p>
<p>Any further thoughts on this?<br />
(Thanks to JW for raising this.)</p>
]]></html></oembed>