I'm not sure about in the US, I know in Canada we've had lots of university faculty positions advertised recently that are explicity for women or some other groups. I don't understand how it's legal but it is.

In Canada the definition of "visible minority" is essentially anyone who isn't a white male.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/jobs/serv...

> I don't understand how it's legal but it is.

Are you sure?

Many countries require being harmed by an action and then bringing that action before a court, before anyone ever compares that action to any specific law at all.

So you can see how many actions become de facto legal if nobody ever does that.

Some manage to find a workaround even when it's illegal. I was reading somewhere that Lund University in Sweden was cancelling the job opening right before the deadline if the most promising candidate wasn't a woman.

There's so much bullshit in this. Universities are not allowed to advertise positions as "women only", but at the same time they are required to reach certain percentage of female "representation" by law.

A recent discussion on HN surfaced this fact. It's legal for higher education for now, but hiring is different.

I think a lot of people don't realize this. I didn't. I assumed if you could do it for education you could do it for hiring. Apparently not!

Any source?

This seems to indicate that minority demographics may be targeted for recruitment, advancement, etc.

https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact

At least at my company, I know they have preferences for minorities over similarly qualified candidates. I've heard a department head specifically tell the managers that we need more women in a specific role. Maybe they're just breaking the law though...

This is one longish discussion of the differences between education and hiring. [1] I think there is a carveout for federal contractors, which is what your link refers to. In general, it is not legal in hiring.

1: https://spigglelaw.com/employers-affirmative-action-boost-di...

Is it?

I think there's an affirmative action lawsuit currently pending before SCOTUS. It seems discrimination is allowable (so far) as long as it has good intentions. It may change with this case.

Although there could be some discrepancy with a colloquial use of discrimination which includes an implied notion of negative bias, while positive biases (preferences to certain candidates) can also fit the more dry definition.

The law doesn't matter except to the degree that the regime will enforce it.