I'm also surprised that the funding source requirement somehow makes this discrimination arms-reach and hence legal. If i was a millionaire homophobe, could i create a fund for positions that specified "no gays"?
Well, the harder question to answer is if you have some money, why is giving it solely to certain groups offensive and certain other groups not? Why would no one get angry if, say, the applications were limited to professors from the area? Or professors above a certain age? If I choose to never give my money to strangers, should strangers be offended? Should they be allowed to legally retaliate?
I understand that in a situation like "no gays" it offends that certain group of people and is discriminatory, but on the other hand, why does the government get to say at all who you should or shouldn't give your money to? It seems like if person X owns thing Y, then they should decide what to do with it, and no one else is entitled to Y (or a chance at getting Y) other than X.
I guess the same goes for employment too. I think discrimination is stupid and the hiring process should be a meritocracy. On the other hand, if I own a business, what business is it of others telling me who I should and should not hire?
I'm genuinely in a moral dilemma here, and I don't know the answer. Any thoughts?
Rand Paul has brought up analogous points. As a matter of intellectual discussion, of course, it's all fair game. As a matter of current, on-the-books law in the US, it's almost impossible to discuss discrimination without bringing up the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is, in particular, relevant to why an employer cannot discriminate ad lib.
[1] Yes, to be pedantic, this is not the percentage of male computer science professors, but instead the percentage of CS Ph.D. recipients in 08-09. It still does a bang-up job of indicating a discrepancy.
