3 ms·

I hear you and have been in your shoes. Hiring is hard, and the steps to hire people ethically are pretty nebulous, which makes it much harder. Especially when

I hear you and have been in your shoes. Hiring is hard, and the steps to hire people ethically are pretty nebulous, which makes it much harder. Especially when the outcome would be the same in many cases, it does seem awfully impractical. But that's the problem with bias in general, though— It's always a matter of practicality. It's been some time since most discrimination deliberately stymied people with a background or makeup the dominant culture considered objectionable. These days it hides in the subconscious mechanisms governing the purportedly rational generalizations we rely on when lacking time and resources to properly investigate something. I don't think it's anybody's fault— it's a bug in our brains and we can't control that. I do think we're ethically obligated to push back when practical requirements compel us to make those generalizations. If we expect police to do it when someone may or may not be pulling a gun out of their pocket, we should certainly expect ourselves to do it when we've got a queue of resumes to process.

Ruphin 4y ago
I think it's an interesting point to make, and it's important to understand that this type of selection is a form of bias. But I think the comparison you are making here with law enforcement using bias towards people of color is not exactly right. There is a difference in signaling by choice (what to put on your resume) vs signaling by nature (skin color). I think we agree that there are some things we cannot change by nature, and a selection bias based on these properties is (in every case?) ethically unjust. I do not agree that it's ethically unjust to have a selection bias on things that are behavioral. If someone is coming into an interview naked I'm going to reject that candidate. Am I being biased towards unclothed people if I do that? Should I continue the interview and try to find the candidate's fit for the position and disregard that they are choosing not to wear clothes? I think it's no different for a candidate that chooses to list certain things on their resume. Nobody is forced to list all of their certificates on their resume. It is a choice the candidate makes, and what else do I have to judge a candidates fitness than the choices they make in how they represent themselves and their skills? You can certainly make an argument that listing many certificates is a shallow signal and you should invest more time into getting to know a candidate better before you choose to reject. If someone chooses to use this signal you can make an argument that they will possibly miss a few good candidates. But I don't think you can make an argument that it's ethically unjust to do so.
- ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
  The whole point is that disadvantaged folks are more likely to use certificates to get a foot in the door and economic hardship in the US is not evenly represented among skin colors— not even close. Folks who don’t natively have the right accent, word usage, cultural reference points and demeanor to seem “credible” and be a “good fit” for internships or jr positions don’t have a lot of options to obtain that credibility. Things like certificates and associates degrees from for-profit colleges might be their only feasible option regardless of how smart or talented they are. Dismissing that entire group out of hand because it saves time is ignoring the economic and cultural realities of who you’re dismissing by doing so. You can separate the cultural implications of nearly any subconscious bias if your analysis is shallow enough.

Ruphin 4y ago

I think it's an interesting point to make, and it's important to understand that this type of selection is a form of bias. But I think the comparison you are making here with law enforcement using bias towards people of color is not exactly right. There is a difference in signaling by choice (what to put on your resume) vs signaling by nature (skin color). I think we agree that there are some things we cannot change by nature, and a selection bias based on these properties is (in every case?) ethically unjust. I do not agree that it's ethically unjust to have a selection bias on things that are behavioral. If someone is coming into an interview naked I'm going to reject that candidate. Am I being biased towards unclothed people if I do that? Should I continue the interview and try to find the candidate's fit for the position and disregard that they are choosing not to wear clothes? I think it's no different for a candidate that chooses to list certain things on their resume. Nobody is forced to list all of their certificates on their resume. It is a choice the candidate makes, and what else do I have to judge a candidates fitness than the choices they make in how they represent themselves and their skills? You can certainly make an argument that listing many certificates is a shallow signal and you should invest more time into getting to know a candidate better before you choose to reject. If someone chooses to use this signal you can make an argument that they will possibly miss a few good candidates. But I don't think you can make an argument that it's ethically unjust to do so.

ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
The whole point is that disadvantaged folks are more likely to use certificates to get a foot in the door and economic hardship in the US is not evenly represented among skin colors— not even close. Folks who don’t natively have the right accent, word usage, cultural reference points and demeanor to seem “credible” and be a “good fit” for internships or jr positions don’t have a lot of options to obtain that credibility. Things like certificates and associates degrees from for-profit colleges might be their only feasible option regardless of how smart or talented they are. Dismissing that entire group out of hand because it saves time is ignoring the economic and cultural realities of who you’re dismissing by doing so. You can separate the cultural implications of nearly any subconscious bias if your analysis is shallow enough.