Approaches to affirmative action/diversity hiring: the poll results

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MARCH 25--MANY INTERESTING COMMENTS, MORE WELCOME.  AND LAWYER READERS:  DO CONSIDER REPLYING TO QUESTION #12, BELOW, ABOUT EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW, IF YOU'RE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT IT

So we got more than 550 responses since late yesterday afternoon to the poll, and the results have been fairly stable now for awhile.  Here they are:

Which description is closest to your approach to diversity/affirmative action hiring for faculty positions?

Make affirmative efforts to identify and solicit applications from members of underrepresented groups, but then choose the candidate with the strongest academic qualifications without regard to group membership. 27%

 

 

Same as #1, except treat membership in an underrepresented group as a tie breaker when academic qualifications of candidates are basically the same. 51%

 

 

Same as #1, except treat membership in an underrepresented group as decisive as long as the candidate is above some threshold of strength in terms of academic qualifications. 13%

 

 

None of the above 9%

 

 

Total votes: 566

Remember that the poll was aimed at academics who believe in affirmative action/diversity hiring (for the difference between affirmative action and diversity, see this CHE essay of mine).

The first choice--which garnered 27% of the votes--expresses what I would think of as the minimal requirement for affirmative action, namely that one take affirmative actions to identify and solicit applications from members of the target groups (e.g., African-Americans).  

The second option--which got the biggest share of the vote, 51%, including my own vote--then treats membership in the underrepresented group as a tie breaker when academic qualifications are more or less equivalent.  Of course, there the devil is in the details of comparing academic qualifications, and different people will do that differently.

The third option is the most aggressive form of affirmative action/diversity action--and got 13% of the vote among readers here--since it treats academic qualifications as a kind of "floor," with group membership being the decisive factor.

My own observation is that many people, who profess something like the second option, often practice something closer to the third option.

I'd be interested in hearing from readers who chose "none of the above" about their own approach to affirmative action hiring; again, if you oppose any affirmative action practices (i.e., even option #1), then this poll wasn't for you.  What I'd like to know is how you approach affirmative action if it is not in the form of the first, second or third options.  Comments on the first three options are also welcome.