next »

[buckeye500]

I work in a large department, and a component of my job is to hire a staff of undergraduate students who will be supervising their peers. At my previous institution, when hiring our staffs, we had something akin to a draft. We were able to review each candidate's file/qualifications and pick one student each round. Each supervisor had a paper on the wall with their name at the top, and when they pick a candidate, their name goes on the paper as well. Except, if you hire a candidate who is considered a racial minority, they get a red dot put by their name.

Nobody comes out and says it, but it is an unspoken rule that your staff should have a good number of, what the higher ups refer to as, "flavor." So imagine your list is up there for everyone to see, and maybe you don't have a ton of "flavor." Now you have to worry about people thinking that maybe you are biased, racist etc. It is a stupid thing to assume based of staff selection, but people whisper.

I've had a hand in hiring staffs who have a great number of racial minorities, and other years staffs who are predominately white. I hire people based of their qualifications. I think this practice is ridiculous. Besides, race is such a narrow view of the person as a whole - people bring all kinds of diversity to the table - sexual orientation, religion, belief systems, political beliefs, etc. I don't think it is fair to narrow diversity down to the color of a person's skin and try to railroad people into hiring a certain person for fear they will be chastised for not being "diverse enough." I know this has an effect of people, b/c I've spoken to colleagues who have passed over candidates with great qualifications to hire someone with "more flavor."

What is next? Purple dots for religious minorities, blue dots for democrats, red dots for Republicans? I just think this is really shallow on the part of the department, who gives more importance to the racial component of diversity just because it is a more overt form.

What do you think? Is this practice acceptable? Am I reading to much into it? 

[zharkov]

 
Not only do I consider the dots a dumb idea, but the "draft" itself is quite unprofessional.  It reminds me a lot of the Deltas choosing their new members.

Find a more professional way to manage the whole thing, and lose the dots in the process.

[buckeye500]

I'd be curious to hear any ideas about a better way to hire staff, b/c I think the process is flawed too.

If I am going to ask this question, I need to be more specific about the situation. My apologies.

I work in the department of residential housing, and we are hiring resident advisers for our residence hall. Each staff is anywhere from 6-20.

[zharkov]

I'd be curious to hear any ideas about a better way to hire staff, b/c I think the process is flawed too.

Just like being on a search committee.  You have apps, a rubric, a spreadsheet, and members who evaluate the apps with respect to the rubric.  Record the data on the spreadsheet and rank them.  Then go down the list and discuss them as you go.  If you get too many apps, the chair and co-chair, call them, can cull the obviously unqualified applicants first.  (If such a thing exists for student life?)

[kathreeds]

I work in a large department, and a component of my job is to hire a staff of undergraduate students who will be supervising their peers. At my previous institution, when hiring our staffs, we had something akin to a draft. We were able to review each candidate's file/qualifications and pick one student each round. Each supervisor had a paper on the wall with their name at the top, and when they pick a candidate, their name goes on the paper as well. Except, if you hire a candidate who is considered a racial minority, they get a red dot put by their name.

Nobody comes out and says it, but it is an unspoken rule that your staff should have a good number of, what the higher ups refer to as, "flavor." So imagine your list is up there for everyone to see, and maybe you don't have a ton of "flavor." Now you have to worry about people thinking that maybe you are biased, racist etc. It is a stupid thing to assume based of staff selection, but people whisper.

I've had a hand in hiring staffs who have a great number of racial minorities, and other years staffs who are predominately white. I hire people based of their qualifications. I think this practice is ridiculous. Besides, race is such a narrow view of the person as a whole - people bring all kinds of diversity to the table - sexual orientation, religion, belief systems, political beliefs, etc. I don't think it is fair to narrow diversity down to the color of a person's skin and try to railroad people into hiring a certain person for fear they will be chastised for not being "diverse enough." I know this has an effect of people, b/c I've spoken to colleagues who have passed over candidates with great qualifications to hire someone with "more flavor."

What is next? Purple dots for religious minorities, blue dots for democrats, red dots for Republicans? I just think this is really shallow on the part of the department, who gives more importance to the racial component of diversity just because it is a more overt form.

What do you think? Is this practice acceptable? Am I reading to much into it? 

Hey,

I don't think that this practice is acceptable, be sure to include minority representation. Never
ask applicants about their marital status, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality,
age, or disability.  THESE ARE ILLEGAL QUESTIONS.  Instead, concentrate on applicant's
diversity experience, education, and attitude. Because you as a hiring manager has identified diversity opportunities associated with the job duties, You should include factors on diversity experience and/or
education as criteria for the hiring decision.

Regards,
Kath

[madhatter]

Never ask applicants about their marital status, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, age, or disability.  THESE ARE ILLEGAL QUESTIONS. 

Although the rest of your advice is reasonable, this is common misinformation spread by people who are unfamiliar with employment law. Questions about disabilities can be illegal if not phrased in the context of performing listed job responsibilities, per the Americans with Disabilities Act. Questions about race, gender, religion, nationality, and age are not illegal but are unwise because those are protected categories under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Marital status and sexual orientation are not protected categories under Federal law but may be under some state laws. However, that doesn't mean that questions are illegal; merely that discriminatory employment practices are.

[gsawpenny]

Excellent point madhatter.  I am none too fond of the term "diversity experience." Is that not just code for another form of racism?  What exactly is diversity experience, especially with undergrads in mind? 

[madhatter]

I am none too fond of the term "diversity experience." Is that not just code for another form of racism? 

And now, I shall back slowly away from the crazy...

[fizmath]

I am none too fond of the term "diversity experience." Is that not just code for another form of racism? 

And now, I shall back slowly away from the crazy...

So what is the definition of "diversity experience"?   I did an internet search and found many instances of someone described as having years of diversity experience.  What does it mean?  They dealt with diverse populations?

[gsawpenny]

I am none too fond of the term "diversity experience." Is that not just code for another form of racism? 

And now, I shall back slowly away from the crazy...

Better crazy than closed-minded.

But, good job on cutting my words.  I asked how the term is applied to undergraduates.

Still please allow me to state than diversity, true diversity, is he genius of America.  This quest to define experience is simply a tool designed to drive a wedge between people by trying to quantify "experience" amongst a group of 18 to 23 year-olds borders on racist.  Would  it not be better to require each hired applicant to attend a diversity
seminar so they have a real credential?

[lyndonparker]

Frankly, in my opinion, if you are hiring residential assistants to supervise undergraduates, the ethnic mix of RAs should approximate that of the students. To not do so is asking for trouble.

[buckeye500]

Where do you draw the line? Just b/c race is visible, doesn't mean it should be held above all other diversity someone has to offer. Should we start asking everyone's religion, sexual orientation, etc. to make sure that is "covered" too? It offends me that this department only cares about race in the diversity issue. I think it is a cop out to cover themselves. They are too lazy to actually get into the nitty gritty of getting to know the students and their experiences. Just as long as the department looks diverse on the outside, that is all they care about.

[lyndonparker]

Sometimes you start where you can. For residential assistants, the diversity I would be looking for would involve race and gender. If I could get some LGBT RAs as well, so much the better.

[spyzowin]

These are student jobs, right? Just offer the jobs to those with the highest GPAs in that order. There shouldn't be any other criterion. Do you work in a university or a god damned McDonalds?

[lyndonparker]

For an RA position? Good luck with that.