Affirmative Action at the University of
Selkirk and the Portrait of a Canadian Advisor
#1) Perceptual Biases
The business department was biased towards the AAC’s work because the department was comprised of 85% of males. The majority of AAC members, on the other hand, consisted only of women faculty members and librarians who believed that academic facilities were dominated by men and that there were an implicit set of values that effectively excluded women. Since the majority of the members are women, this caused the AAC to be biased towards male faculty members and the university, since there were no male opinions in the group. The proposal that AAC formulated was very biased towards males, for example, it stated that women candidates with acceptable qualifications would be offered the position prior to any males. This could create an equity issue among the staff and could de-motivate them from their work and dislike the university.
Fundamental Attribution Error
In the case of Affirmative Action at the University of Selkirk, the audits being conducted could’ve gone wrong because of many biases. For one, women may not have been hired because of external causes of the fundamental attribution error, which are “explanations based on situations over which the individual has no control.” Specifically, an external cause would be if the female candidate’s qualifications did not match the job description and not necessarily because the university was biased against women.
The Halo Effect
The Affirmative Action Committee (AAC) could be biased towards the Business Studies department by not allowing the department to hire a woman in the finance area until they negotiated a plan together. The business department rejected the AAC’s plan ...