Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

[Yoyoma_2]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

I would imagine that most countries have protections against employment
discriminations like the one mentioned. For example, in the Canadian
Constitution at least, the constitution act prevents lawmakers to enact
laws that discriminate against the mentioned groups (including age).
One could argue that if a law would be passed or a law would not
explicitly forbid the discrimination by age of an employee, it would be
unconstitutiona l.

When you think about it, asking for someone by age is not necessarly
fair to everyone. For example in our engineering program there are
poeple that are well into their 40's. Poeple that want a second chance
in life. And as a global society I think we have to respect that.

US Law even forbids it. Though this is not expressed through the
(rather weak although revolutionary) US Bill of Rights.

Reference: http://www.eeoc.gov/types/age.html
"The ADEA generally makes it unlawful to include age preferences,
limitations, or specifications in job notices or advertisements. A job
notice or advertisement may specify an age limit only in the rare
circumstances where age is shown to be a "bona fide occupational
qualification" (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of
the business."

Reference: The Canadian charter of human rights states that:
"Equality Rights

15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has
the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without
discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race,
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or
physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that
has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged
individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of
race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental
or physical disability.(5) "




Jacek Generowicz wrote:[color=blue]
> Bart Demoen <bmd@cs.kuleuve n.ac.be> writes:
>
>[color=green]
>>Excluding Belgian PhDs also strikes me as against the European idea[/color]
>
>
> [...]
>
> Actually, this is very typical of jobs funded by the EU
> itself. Usually under some "mobility of researchers" scheme, where the
> fundamental principle is that the researcher work outside his own
> country ... that's the "mobility" part :-)[/color]

[Matthew Huntbach]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

In comp.lang.prolo g Kees van Reeuwijk <reeuwijk@few.v u.nl> wrote:[color=blue]
> Tayssir John Gabbour <tayss_temp2@ya hoo.com> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > Candidates should not be older than 35 years and hold a PhD in
>> > computer science (or equivalent) acquired within the past five
>> > years at a university outside Belgium.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I'm not close to 35, but it's good to hear how discriminatory people
>> are. I mean, that such a thing would be posted without
>> justification.. . perhaps you are simply the best usenet troll.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> I don't like such restricitions either (especially since I'm a postdoc
> older than 35), but they sound like they are externally imposed. My
> guess is some funding agency is trying to draw `young blood' from abroad
> to Stimulate Belgian Science and Make Belgium Competitive in a HiTech
> World.[/color]

Yes, I'm sure that's the case. It used to be extremely common for government
academic research initiatives to have age limits imposed on them. It may
still be not entirely unfair if the idea is to kickstart new careers and
shake up aging faculties. But I think there was also the (rather dubious)
thought behind it that people are at their peak in terms of new research
thinking when they're young, particularly in the more abstract and
mathematical disciplines. The idea that it's unfair to discriminate by age
is a fairly recent one, and while in most countries legislation outlawing
discrimination by sex or trace has been in place for some time, legislation
outlawing discrimination by age may not yet be in place.

Matthew Huntbach

[chris]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

Peter G. Hancock wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm 53 myself. Before I can open my front door to pick up my
> milk in the morning, I have to equip myself with a large club
> to beat off the hordes of prospective employers who are waiting
> outside to pounce on me waving job contracts and fountain pens.[/color]

It's even worse in Belgium, where barely one-third of the population aged
50 and over is actually in full-time employment(!). People have been known
to sell their grandparents into slavery. Thank <deity> I don't have
grandchildren ...


--
Chris Gray chris@kiffer.eu net.be
/k/ Embedded Java Solutions

[c7517665]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis andtransformati on

in article c2ac11$1r64pm$1 @ID-125932.news.uni-berlin.de, Christopher Browne
at cbbrowne@acm.or g wrote on 5/3/04 18:05:
[color=blue]
> Oops! "Paul F. Dietz" <dietz@dls.ne t> was seen spray-painting on a wall:[color=green]
>> Wim Vanhoof wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Candidates should not be older than 35 years[/color]
>>
>> Hmm. In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
>> discrimination laws. (But IANAL)[/color]
>
> The last time I heard, Belgium was not even on the same continent as
> the United States, so it would seem pretty irrelevant what US law has
> to say.
>
> Unless you were planning to send in a platoon of M1 Abrams tanks...[/color]

The Netherlands shares a border with Belgium (in case you didn't hear
this the last time) and here age discrimination is forbidden and
only done in a sneaky way. I think the position is already given
away (also because of the short notice), or the boss is 36.
Good luck young man!

Henk Schotel (from the grave).

[Markus Mottl]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

In comp.lang.funct ional c7517665 <c7517665@wanad oo.nl> wrote:[color=blue]
> Henk Schotel (from the grave).[/color]

To add my two cents to the discussion on age discrimination, I once
heard the following story: some guy aged 40 went to a club to have some
entertainment. On seeing him a guy in his twenties turned around in
disgust and said to his friend: "Look, now they even already come here
to die!".

Oh well, in this world it is obviously better to live fast and die
young... ;-)

Regards,
Markus Mottl (30 and almost dead)

--
Markus Mottl http://www.oefai.at/~markus markus@oefai.at

[Don Groves]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:00:29 -0600, Paul F. Dietz <dietz@dls.ne t> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Wim Vanhoof wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> Candidates should not be older than 35 years[/color]
>
> Hmm. In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
> discrimination laws. (But IANAL)[/color]

How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
a violation of those same laws?
--
dg
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

[Yoyoma_2]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

Don Groves wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:00:29 -0600, Paul F. Dietz <dietz@dls.ne t> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Wim Vanhoof wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> Candidates should not be older than 35 years[/color]
>>
>>
>> Hmm. In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
>> discrimination laws. (But IANAL)[/color]
>
>
> How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
> a violation of those same laws?[/color]

Its constitutionall y based, meaning you cannot have a law that
superseeds the statements in the constutitions, whatever they may be.
Thats the first article of pretty much any constitution.

If someone would appeal the supreme court would rule in favor of the
constitution.

And that law could probably be judged as antequated though. The US
constitution isn't a "modern" constitution. IT has a lot of stuff in it
that shouldn't be there nowa days. Or sentences that should be re-made,
or dropped. Like the ammendments granting prohabition and then
repealing it.

But that's just my cannuck view of US law :)

[Erik Max Francis]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

Don Groves wrote:[color=blue]
>
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 06:00:29 -0600, Paul F. Dietz <dietz@dls.ne t> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Wim Vanhoof wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>
> >> Candidates should not be older than 35 years[/color]
> >
> > Hmm. In the US, I think that would be a violation of federal age
> > discrimination laws. (But IANAL)[/color]
>
> How come requiring a US president to be at least 35 isn't
> a violation of those same laws?[/color]

By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution. A law changing or
removing that age limit would be unconstitutiona l, and would get thrown
out by the Supreme Court.

But really what you're talking about here can't be discrimination (as
the term is usually meant). Children can't vote, much less hold public
office. It's well-established that children do not have the same rights
as adults until they reach a certain age (what age that is varies from
state to state). You don't, for instance, need a search warrant to
search a child's school locker (with the principal's permission), a
search that would be deemed illegal if it were an adult's personal
locker at work (even if the boss gave permission to perform the search).

Infants are incapable of voting or holding public office or being
drafted into the armed services (or _speaking_ for that matter), so a
line has to be drawn somewhere. Certainly one could debate where that
line should be drawn -- but clearly an age limit on holding public
office isn't unconstitutiona l, since age limits are everywhere and,
quite frankly, _required_ in the justice system.

--
__ Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
\__/ If the sky should fall, hold up your hands.
-- (a Spanish proverb)

[Joan Estes]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.co m> wrote
[color=blue]
> By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution. A law changing or
> removing that age limit would be unconstitutiona l, and would get thrown
> out by the Supreme Court.[/color]

Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system. Without a formal notion
of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the U.S. would
perhaps be better off having no constitution at all. As evidence,
I present the current sorry efforts to change state and federal constitutions
to make certain discriminatory practices universal.

[Marc Spitzer]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis andtransformati on

joanestes2000@y ahoo.com (Joan Estes) writes:
[color=blue]
> Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.co m> wrote
>[color=green]
>> By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution. A law changing or
>> removing that age limit would be unconstitutiona l, and would get thrown
>> out by the Supreme Court.[/color]
>
> Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system. Without a formal
> notion of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the
> U.S. would perhaps be better off having no constitution at all. As
> evidence, I present the current sorry efforts to change state and
> federal constitutions to make certain discriminatory practices
> universal.[/color]

You are talking about gay marriage right? If you are there is nothing
preventing a gay man proposing to a woman and getting married or a gay
woman doing the same with a man. So they are not being discriminated
against.

Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
relationship if they want to. Now the financial and legal benefits
of marriage are there because the social purpose of marriage is to grow
the next generation of citizens and that is very expensive to do. Now
gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
benefit's?

We also have a formal notion of rights it is called the constitution
the amendments to the constitution. And the people who wrote the US
constitution were not happy with it they just figured that it was the
best document they could write after years of trying. Also the fact
that the bar is so high for changing it is good because it prevents
all kinds of stupidity from happening. Societies that change too fast
fall apart.

marc

[Richard C. Cobbe]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis andtransformati on

Marc Spitzer <mspitze1@opton line.net> writes:
[color=blue]
> joanestes2000@y ahoo.com (Joan Estes) writes:
>[color=green]
>> Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.co m> wrote
>>[color=darkred]
>>> By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution. A law changing or
>>> removing that age limit would be unconstitutiona l, and would get thrown
>>> out by the Supreme Court.[/color]
>>
>> Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system. Without a formal
>> notion of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the
>> U.S. would perhaps be better off having no constitution at all. As
>> evidence, I present the current sorry efforts to change state and
>> federal constitutions to make certain discriminatory practices
>> universal.[/color]
>
> You are talking about gay marriage right? If you are there is nothing
> preventing a gay man proposing to a woman and getting married or a gay
> woman doing the same with a man. So they are not being discriminated
> against.[/color]

Oh, brother. Here we go again. (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.) I'm
getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
scrutiny.

They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
not affect heterosexuals. In general, a heterosexual person is not
prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.

Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
marriage. I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons of
public health. No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
the case of same-sex marriages.

And, to tie in another favorite anti-same-sex-marriage argument, how does
telling gay men to suck it up and marry a woman (or vice versa) protect the
"sanctity of marriage" (whatever that means)? Then, you have people
getting married primarily for tax benefits. That's not the kind of
commitment that marriage is supposed to be about, and that's not the kind
of commitment that the seven couples in Goodrich v. Department of Public
Health are trying to make.
[color=blue]
> Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
> relationship if they want to.[/color]

Well, not since Lawrence v. Texas, anyway.... (Granted, this wasn't about
their right to live together in a monogamous relationship, but it's pretty
closely related, and it's an indication of how bad things were until very
recently.)
[color=blue]
> Now the financial and legal benefits of marriage are there because the
> social purpose of marriage is to grow the next generation of citizens and
> that is very expensive to do.[/color]

This argument doesn't hold water. In particular, in its recent decision,
the Massachusetts SJC specifically said that Mass. state law does not
contain any justification for the claim that marriage exists only for the
purposes of procreation.

So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
that established procreation as the basis of marriage. While this effort
seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
have this law on the books. Because then, we could enforce it. Vigorously.

Depending on how such a law would be worded, it would forbid marriage to
those straight couples in which:

- either he or she is naturally infertile
- he's had a vasectomy
- she's had her tubes tied
- she's had a hysterectomy (which, BTW, are sometimes required to protect
the health of the woman in question, regardless of whether or not she
wants to have children)
- they've simply chosen not to have kids
- (sort of extreme, but possible depending on how the law is worded) he
prefers to use a condom.

Is that really what you want?

This isn't just a Massachusetts issue, either. I don't think there's a
state in the union that forbids marriage to any couple that meets one of
the preceding conditions. So it's awfully hard to justify the claim that
marriage is all about procreation.
[color=blue]
> Now gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
> economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
> benefit's?[/color]

Because they may want to adopt children? Because they may have children of
their own from previous straight marriages? Because the benefits of
marriage are also available to straight couples who do not or cannot have
children?
[color=blue]
> We also have a formal notion of rights it is called the constitution
> the amendments to the constitution. And the people who wrote the US
> constitution were not happy with it they just figured that it was the
> best document they could write after years of trying.[/color]

Um, IIRC, the constitutional convention in Philadelphia lasted only a
summer, not "years of trying."

That said, I agree with your argument that the Constitution, and
particularly the Bill of Rights and other such amendments, do serve as our
(legally) fundamental notion of human rights. Trying to add another layer
above that is somewhat problematic.
[color=blue]
> Also the fact that the bar is so high for changing [the Constitution] is
> good because it prevents all kinds of stupidity from happening.[/color]

Agreed. This stands a good chance of making sure the Federal DOM amendment
fails. If only state constitutions were as hard to change.
[color=blue]
> Societies that change too fast fall apart.[/color]

This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
this claim up?

Richard

[Yoyoma_2]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

We were discussing age discrimination. ..



Richard C. Cobbe wrote:[color=blue]
> Marc Spitzer <mspitze1@opton line.net> writes:
>
>[color=green]
>>joanestes2000 @yahoo.com (Joan Estes) writes:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.co m> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>By definition, no, because it's in our Constitution. A law changing or
>>>>removing that age limit would be unconstitutiona l, and would get thrown
>>>>out by the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>>Which is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. system. Without a formal
>>>notion of human rights that supersedes the constitution, the
>>>U.S. would perhaps be better off having no constitution at all. As
>>>evidence, I present the current sorry efforts to change state and
>>>federal constitutions to make certain discriminatory practices
>>>universal.[/color]
>>
>>You are talking about gay marriage right? If you are there is nothing
>>preventing a gay man proposing to a woman and getting married or a gay
>>woman doing the same with a man. So they are not being discriminated
>>against.[/color]
>
>
> Oh, brother. Here we go again. (I'm going to be awfully glad when this
> issue finally goes away, although it'll probably take 30-50 years.) I'm
> getting really tired of hearing the same old arguments against same-sex
> marriage, especially because I haven't heard one yet that holds up under
> scrutiny.
>
> They (well, ok, we) *are* being discriminated against, in the very real
> sense that we are not allowed to marry whom we choose, in a way that does
> not affect heterosexuals. In general, a heterosexual person is not
> prevented from marrying the person of his/her choice.
>
> Of course, there are consanguinity laws that do affect heterosexual
> marriage. I don't have a problem with these; here, the state clearly has
> an interest in forbidding such couples from having children, for reasons of
> public health. No one has proved that the state has a similar interest in
> the case of same-sex marriages.
>
> And, to tie in another favorite anti-same-sex-marriage argument, how does
> telling gay men to suck it up and marry a woman (or vice versa) protect the
> "sanctity of marriage" (whatever that means)? Then, you have people
> getting married primarily for tax benefits. That's not the kind of
> commitment that marriage is supposed to be about, and that's not the kind
> of commitment that the seven couples in Goodrich v. Department of Public
> Health are trying to make.
>
>[color=green]
>>Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
>>relationshi p if they want to.[/color]
>
>
> Well, not since Lawrence v. Texas, anyway.... (Granted, this wasn't about
> their right to live together in a monogamous relationship, but it's pretty
> closely related, and it's an indication of how bad things were until very
> recently.)
>
>[color=green]
>>Now the financial and legal benefits of marriage are there because the
>>social purpose of marriage is to grow the next generation of citizens and
>>that is very expensive to do.[/color]
>
>
> This argument doesn't hold water. In particular, in its recent decision,
> the Massachusetts SJC specifically said that Mass. state law does not
> contain any justification for the claim that marriage exists only for the
> purposes of procreation.
>
> So, Gov. Romney and Speaker Finneran made some noises about passing a law
> that established procreation as the basis of marriage. While this effort
> seems to have died off, I think it would have been absolutely wonderful to
> have this law on the books. Because then, we could enforce it. Vigorously.
>
> Depending on how such a law would be worded, it would forbid marriage to
> those straight couples in which:
>
> - either he or she is naturally infertile
> - he's had a vasectomy
> - she's had her tubes tied
> - she's had a hysterectomy (which, BTW, are sometimes required to protect
> the health of the woman in question, regardless of whether or not she
> wants to have children)
> - they've simply chosen not to have kids
> - (sort of extreme, but possible depending on how the law is worded) he
> prefers to use a condom.
>
> Is that really what you want?
>
> This isn't just a Massachusetts issue, either. I don't think there's a
> state in the union that forbids marriage to any couple that meets one of
> the preceding conditions. So it's awfully hard to justify the claim that
> marriage is all about procreation.
>
>[color=green]
>>Now gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
>>economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
>>benefit's?[/color]
>
>
> Because they may want to adopt children? Because they may have children of
> their own from previous straight marriages? Because the benefits of
> marriage are also available to straight couples who do not or cannot have
> children?
>
>[color=green]
>>We also have a formal notion of rights it is called the constitution
>>the amendments to the constitution. And the people who wrote the US
>>constitutio n were not happy with it they just figured that it was the
>>best document they could write after years of trying.[/color]
>
>
> Um, IIRC, the constitutional convention in Philadelphia lasted only a
> summer, not "years of trying."
>
> That said, I agree with your argument that the Constitution, and
> particularly the Bill of Rights and other such amendments, do serve as our
> (legally) fundamental notion of human rights. Trying to add another layer
> above that is somewhat problematic.
>
>[color=green]
>>Also the fact that the bar is so high for changing [the Constitution] is
>>good because it prevents all kinds of stupidity from happening.[/color]
>
>
> Agreed. This stands a good chance of making sure the Federal DOM amendment
> fails. If only state constitutions were as hard to change.
>
>[color=green]
>>Societies that change too fast fall apart.[/color]
>
>
> This certainly sounds plausible, but do you have any hard evidence to back
> this claim up?
>
> Richard[/color]

[Ketil Malde]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

Yoyoma_2 <Yoyoma_2@[at-]Hotmail.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> We were discussing age discrimination. ..[/color]

Well, if you see gay marriage as a discriminated union, it brings us
back on topic for at least a couple of newsgroups...

:-)

-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

[Yoyoma_2]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

Ketil Malde wrote:[color=blue]
> Yoyoma_2 <Yoyoma_2@[at-]Hotmail.com> writes:
>
>[color=green]
>>We were discussing age discrimination. ..[/color]
>
>
> Well, if you see gay marriage as a discriminated union, it brings us
> back on topic for at least a couple of newsgroups...
>
> :-)[/color]

I don'want to comment on the actual, previous or future state of US
civil rights. But lets say that the US should maby model itself after
pretty much every other modern country in terms of civil rights :). So i
guess that was my comment hehe.

[color=blue]
>
> -kzm[/color]

[Anton van Straaten]

Re: Postdoc position in program development, analysis and transformation

Marc Spitzer wrote:[color=blue]
> Now no one is stopping them from living together in a monogamous
> relationship if they want to. Now the financial and legal benefits
> of marriage are there because the social purpose of marriage is to grow
> the next generation of citizens and that is very expensive to do. Now
> gay(same sex) couples do not produce children so they do not get the
> economic drain that regular couples do so why should they get the
> benefit's?[/color]

This argument makes no sense. First, gay people can and do adopt, and this
would presumably be easier for gay couples if they were legally recognized.
Second, there's no legal requirement for married couples to have children,
so childless gay couples should be able to obtain the same marital benefits
as childless straight couples.

Really, you can't argue issues like this on rational grounds. It boils down
to your acceptance of principles. If you fundamentally don't believe in the
concept of same-sex marriage, and perhaps believe that some book written
thousands of years ago prohibits this (alongside its exhortations to kill
all the women and children in the villages of your enemies[*]), then no
amount of rational argument is going to help, and whatever happens will have
to be decided as the result of a political war.

Anton
[*] http://mindprod.com/biblestudy.html references, among many others,
Ezekiel 9:6, "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children,
and women".