An End To Bias For 'white-Sounding' Staff, Really?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11953841/Big-employers-agree-to-hide-names-on-graduate-job-applications-to-end-discrimination.html

[woofgang]

The NHS introduced an online application system around 14 years ago that blocks out name and gender (unless gender is a GOQ) Once the shortlist has been made and candidates are invited for interview then the name and gender become available. Not sure what the problem is?

[bazwillrun]

Its called social engineering...nothing new nowdays

[woofgang]

but its not social engineering.....if you are given CV's with no indication of gender or ethnicity and your shortlist consists all white males then it MUST be because they are the best people for the job.

[Buenchico]

There's plenty of evidence to show that people who genuinely believe that they don't discriminate on the grounds of race (or age or gender, etc) can still do so subconsciously, so it makes sense to remove indicators of race (or age or gender, etc) from application forms [except, of course, when those factors are directly relevant to the applications].

As an example, I used to teach an extremely able 'A' level student (with an exceptionally mature and pleasant personality) who found that his applications for university places were all meeting with rejection. He wondered if it might be because his name (Fraz Taj) indicated his racial background. So he changed his name by deed poll to David Christopher Parkinson and re-applied to the same universities. Every one of them then offered him a place (including Oxford, which he accepted).

[jim360]

I don't see how anyone can complain about this. Applications that are blind to anything other than job skills will ensure that successful applications were so for no other reason than that they were genuinely the best person for the job. And, unfortunately, applications with names and personal details on are subject to unconscious biases that can make it harder for certain groups of people to get the job.

[youngmafbog]

So ok, they get to the interview and then walks in .... (not Mr Middle class white Englander) followed by - No job.

So this is pretty pointless. Those who judge by race or creed will continue to do so.

[naomi24]

^Yes, they will.

[jim360]

True, the problem is unlikely to go away entirely -- but at least this way the bias that exists before the interview stage is likely to be eliminated. Previously job applicants had to pass two stages of inherent bias; now there would only be one. That does represent an improvement, no?

[Sqad]

I agree with YMG.........if you take a racist attitude to the application form, then your attitude will remain the same at the interview.

Seems pointless to me.

[jim360]

I think this has more potential than people are giving it credit for. In the first place it's part of a wider package of measures including blinding UCAS applications -- including applications to universities that have no interview stage anyway. So a removal of bias there is essentially totally effective. Moreover we aren't really talking about active, deliberate racism here, but rather the unconscious biases that come into play when you have to sort through a lot of applications for not very many places quickly. If things get to interview, unconscious bias will play less of a significant role because you have more time to question and get to know the candidate. It will still be present -- you can't ever eliminate it -- but reducing its impact on the stage where snap decisions are important is likely to make a difference.

And besides, it only takes a handful of people being given a job they deserved. but didn't get because of unfortunate unconscious biases, for the measure to be worthwhile.

[mikey4444]

I am with woofy here....it sounds like a very good idea to me. Lets hope it will mitigate some of the racism involved in recruitment at least.

If some companies say that they don't practise racism when recruiting staff, then this won't effect them, will it ?

[Mamyalynne]

I also agree, sad though it is that it's required. But if it gets applicants at least one step nearer then it can only be good.

[mikey4444]

Mamy...the common sense approach, as usual !

[pixie374]

I don't know if it's a general thing, or just where I worked, but when we recruited people, you could reject an application form for any reason at all, but had to give a valid reason if you turned someone down after an interview.

[anotheoldgit]

What about the discrimination shown towards white people, when certain employers only wish to recruit black and other ethnic minority staff?

[mikey4444]

AOG...are you seriously suggesting that the issue of black employers discriminating against white candidates, if such a thing even exists, is as bad as white employers discriminating against black and other non-white ethnic candidates ?

But even if there is a problem as you say, when the name and racial background of prospective candidates is kept secret until after selection for an interview, then it will benefit everybody !

[naomi24]

Mikey, //are you seriously suggesting that the issue of black employers discriminating against white candidates, if such a thing even exists, is as bad as white employers discriminating against black and other non-white ethnic candidates ? //

Discrimination is discrimination isn't it?

[mikey4444]

Naomi...no idea what point you are trying but failing to make ?

If these changes come about, then it will help to combat discrimination based of race and ethnicity, wherever it occurs. Most other people on here today seem to understand that and I am not sure why you can't.

[Baldric]

///when the name and racial background of prospective candidates is kept secret until after selection for an interview, then it will benefit everybody !///

No, it won't, the minute they walk in the door for the interview if they are not what the interviewer wanted/expected we are back to square one!

[pixie374]

I agree with her. There shouldn't be discrimination either way.