Whether something counts as a bona fide occupational qualification (B.F.O.Q.) is a complicated question best left to the lawyers. I have no doubt theyd side with you, though. Few gender-based exemptions to Title VII have been granted, and they typically involve concerns about bodily privacy in prisons, hospitals and the like. You and the music-school director ought to comply with the law.

But putting aside the legalities for a moment, it can be challenging ethically to decide whether a preference in hiring is objectionable. Here, the decision was guided by the preferences of an existing roster of students, not by the directors own tastes. Courts have taken a dim view of arguments for gender discrimination based on customer preference, and the same may well apply here. And yet this preference strikes me as less troublesome than a preference for, say, a white woman, which would be difficult to view as having nothing to do with hostility to nonwhite people. In general, partiality for those of certain identities is morally less troublesome than hostility to people of other identities and yes, this is a coherent distinction. It matters, too, if there is a general background of unfair discrimination against people of one identity in finding jobs in a certain field, in which case favoring people of that kind can be a contribution to meeting an injustice. (Perhaps because my primary- and secondary-school piano teachers were both women, Id be surprised to learn that women face particular prejudice in this particular field.)

Being a woman could be morally, if not legally, a B.F.O.Q. if the students came from a religious tradition that prohibited them from spending time with men outside their own families and would simply cease coming if a man showed up. What would be the point in hiring a teacher whose students will simply disappear? Here, there would be a trade-off between accommodating an irrational injustice toward a qualified man and allowing these women the benefit of instruction.

But such circumstances surely dont apply in this case, so youd be justified in saying that youll run the ad only if the director undertakes to consider candidates of any gender. If a woman gets the job, you may feel that the men didnt get a fair shot. But you cant be sure of it. Having made the point, you can hope that the director will recognize that you were right and that what he ought to have done was to make the case to the students that their preference was unreasonable.

And now that youve been sensitized to the issue, you might consider trying to keep track of whether those using your services consistently favor one gender or other in their appointments. As you recognize, whats important in the field of justice in employment is what people do, not just what they say.

View post:
Should I Pretend to Love My Stepchildren? - The New York Times