4 ms·

The point is that religion, sexual orientation, etc., aren't supposed to be criteria in your hiring process, one way or the other. It doesn't matter if you pref

The point is that religion, sexual orientation, etc., aren't supposed to be criteria in your hiring process, one way or the other. It doesn't matter if you prefer atheists or devout Christians. You are welcome to hold personal beliefs about religion -- but the topic itself shouldn't come up in the interview. And unless you're a religious organization, I can think of few reasons why it should ever come up in the workplace at all. Same thing with sexual orientation, or any other protected status. In a professional work environment, these things aren't factors. Surely there's a way to test for "cultural fit" that doesn't involve directly, or indirectly, testing for protected status. And if your company's culture can't find a way to test for fit without testing for protected status, then your culture needs serious work.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Surely there's a way to test for "cultural fit" that doesn't involve directly, or indirectly, testing for protected status. I'm not sure that's the case -- a major part of "cultural fit" in many cases seems to be selecting along protected axis of discrimination by other names. (Heck, phrases very similar to that have been used to cover covert discrimination on protected axis since legal protections against discrimination were first adopted.)
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Oh, I generally agree. "Cultural fit" was the reason my grandparents couldn't get into certain schools, clubs, organizations, or jobs. "Cultural fit" has a long and notorious history as a coded or indirect form of discrimination. That said, company culture can very real and very potent, provided it's founded on professional and non-discriminatory criteria. That's why the burden of non-discrimination is on the company and its culture, not on the candidate. What are valid forms of cultural-fit tests? ESPN, for example, gives candidates for many of its positions a sports-trivia test. This makes sense. If you're going to work for a sports network, you should probably enjoy sports and be generally knowledgeable about the subject. And ESPN, for its part, probably notices an empirical correlation between people who love sports and people who succeed in sports-related television. Now, this sort of thing would be discriminatory if it involved any aspect that tested for status. Holding evaluative games of pickup basketball or touch football would discriminate against the physically disabled, pregnant women, and heck, just about any woman placed on or against a mostly male team. ESPN is welcome to participate in intramural sports game, or to hold weekend sports outings. But those activities cannot be used to evaluate employment status or candidacy, and an employee who doesn't want to participate should not feel pressured to do so.
facepalm 12y ago
But if you can't go to a bar with your colleagues, suddenly religion enters the equation. Should your colleagues never go to a bar to respect you? Or should they just go without you - but then maybe you don't get the promotion because your boss became friendly with a colleague who went along to the bar. I didn't enter religion - somebody else started mentioning it as a reason to not go to a bar. I don't think there should be a rule that companies should never go out for drinks just because somebodies religious feelings might be offended.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Nobody is saying your company shouldn't go out to a bar "just because somebody's religious feelings might be offended." If you want to have company outings at bars, that is totally fine, provided a) attendance at said outings is optional and not mandatory (or even de facto mandatory, i.e., employees are held in some sort of disregard for not attending); b) attendance at bars is not evaluative, i.e., you are not using the bar as an indirect test of someone's fit on a protected dimension. Ok: You invite everyone out for drinks. Questionable: You make someone's ability to hang at a bar an explicit or implicit criterion for hiring them. Not ok: You determine that you are going to use the bar as a direct "test" for religious affiliation, sexual orientation, personal beliefs about alcohol, etc. (Extreme example: "I don't want to hire any Muslims or Mormons here. I'm going to ask all candidates to a bar as part of the interview process and offer them a drink, to suss out their religious affiliation.") Obviously this isn't a binary situation. There is a spectrum of acceptable and unacceptable practices to be navigated. Some of it comes down to personal judgment, some of it comes down to common sense, and some of it comes down to the law.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Surely there's a way to test for "cultural fit" that doesn't involve directly, or indirectly, testing for protected status. I'm not sure that's the case -- a major part of "cultural fit" in many cases seems to be selecting along protected axis of discrimination by other names. (Heck, phrases very similar to that have been used to cover covert discrimination on protected axis since legal protections against discrimination were first adopted.)

jonnathanson 12y ago
Oh, I generally agree. "Cultural fit" was the reason my grandparents couldn't get into certain schools, clubs, organizations, or jobs. "Cultural fit" has a long and notorious history as a coded or indirect form of discrimination. That said, company culture can very real and very potent, provided it's founded on professional and non-discriminatory criteria. That's why the burden of non-discrimination is on the company and its culture, not on the candidate. What are valid forms of cultural-fit tests? ESPN, for example, gives candidates for many of its positions a sports-trivia test. This makes sense. If you're going to work for a sports network, you should probably enjoy sports and be generally knowledgeable about the subject. And ESPN, for its part, probably notices an empirical correlation between people who love sports and people who succeed in sports-related television. Now, this sort of thing would be discriminatory if it involved any aspect that tested for status. Holding evaluative games of pickup basketball or touch football would discriminate against the physically disabled, pregnant women, and heck, just about any woman placed on or against a mostly male team. ESPN is welcome to participate in intramural sports game, or to hold weekend sports outings. But those activities cannot be used to evaluate employment status or candidacy, and an employee who doesn't want to participate should not feel pressured to do so.

facepalm 12y ago

But if you can't go to a bar with your colleagues, suddenly religion enters the equation. Should your colleagues never go to a bar to respect you? Or should they just go without you - but then maybe you don't get the promotion because your boss became friendly with a colleague who went along to the bar. I didn't enter religion - somebody else started mentioning it as a reason to not go to a bar. I don't think there should be a rule that companies should never go out for drinks just because somebodies religious feelings might be offended.

jonnathanson 12y ago
Nobody is saying your company shouldn't go out to a bar "just because somebody's religious feelings might be offended." If you want to have company outings at bars, that is totally fine, provided a) attendance at said outings is optional and not mandatory (or even de facto mandatory, i.e., employees are held in some sort of disregard for not attending); b) attendance at bars is not evaluative, i.e., you are not using the bar as an indirect test of someone's fit on a protected dimension. Ok: You invite everyone out for drinks. Questionable: You make someone's ability to hang at a bar an explicit or implicit criterion for hiring them. Not ok: You determine that you are going to use the bar as a direct "test" for religious affiliation, sexual orientation, personal beliefs about alcohol, etc. (Extreme example: "I don't want to hire any Muslims or Mormons here. I'm going to ask all candidates to a bar as part of the interview process and offer them a drink, to suss out their religious affiliation.") Obviously this isn't a binary situation. There is a spectrum of acceptable and unacceptable practices to be navigated. Some of it comes down to personal judgment, some of it comes down to common sense, and some of it comes down to the law.