next »

[browneyedgirl]

I know asking questions about race, children etc are legal (but illegal to make decisions based on the answers). Does anyone have a link to an article or site that verifiea this (I was telling someone and they were not sure if what I was telling them was true).

Thanks in advance!

[tinyzombie]

These might help:

http://usfweb2.usf.edu/eoa/interview_faq.asp
http://www.stat.washington.edu/jobs/questions/
http://www.uwec.edu/career/online_library/illegal_ques.htm

Sometimes Google is the quickest way to get an answer.

[imawakenow]

Sometimes Google is the quickest way to get an answer.

Or checking past threads on the same topic:

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,82657.0.html

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,77761.0.html
(Long thread with specific question and many responses)

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,76457.0.html

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,27032.0.html

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,31885.0.html

OP: There is some disagreement as to whether certain questions are actually illegal in and of themselves or whether those questions are forbidden by employers because they can easily become the basis for a lawsuit. I've seen it argued both ways, although Google will produce many more "illegal question" responses and I tend to fall in the other camp.

[fiona]

In most cases nowadays, there's no need to ask the questions to get info. The info's available through Google and Facebook.

The question is about whether the info can be used in hiring decisions. Even if it can't be officially used, it can and is used unofficially. There's no way to trace or monitor that.

The Fiona

[crowie]

This reminds me of the situation not so long ago (that was discussed on the CHE fora) in which an astronomer sued a hiring department for not hiring him on the grounds of religious discrimination (he is also an evangelical Christian and has written articles critical of evolutionary scientists and drawing parallels between scientific phenomena and passage from Genesis).  The big mistake they made was discussing his religion over email, consulting non-members of the SC in other departments about his work, and bringing his views up with him in person at the interview.  They might have done better to not hire him without leaving these "smoking guns" (as the NY Times calls them) all over the place, if they were really concerned about what it would do to their image.  It cost the university $125,000 and lawyer's fees, apparently:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/19/religious_discrimination_lawsuit_ends_well_for_christian_researcher

[westcoastgirl]

I disagree that this sort of information is readily available on facebook and/or google. I guess, if someone probed quite a bit or hacked my account (which has been deactivated through the duration of the job search and will only be activated again when I finish my degree), they could find that information. Even when I was on FB, my settings were ultra-private (for different reasons). I routinely checked my settings logged in from my husband's account and a fake account (I shared no "common friends" with the fake person). One could not even access my profile picture. I've made myself untaggable and then, even before that, my tagged pictures were private. I'm sure a s*** never to take a picture of myself even with a drink in my hand.

A google search turns up lots of info for me. It's all related to my teaching and academic career. But even on sites like spokeo and others, there's no indication of my marital status. In fact, even a search of my husband and my name paired together yield nothing.  There's certainly no information about whether I'm a parent or not. And, there's no images of me anywhere. I studiously avoid pictures (for vanity reasons).

I'm not saying that information isn't readily available. I just don't think that this is generally true.  

[fayefaye]

Even if the SC knows not to ask these things, some well meaning but clueless graduate student may ask all of them during lunch or some other event.

[westcoastgirl]

FF: I know a college who purposely uses graduate student to achieve this.

[browneyedgirl]

These might help:

http://usfweb2.usf.edu/eoa/interview_faq.asp
http://www.stat.washington.edu/jobs/questions/
http://www.uwec.edu/career/online_library/illegal_ques.htm

Sometimes Google is the quickest way to get an answer.

That's what I did but they say that it's 'unlawful'...so that is different from illegal right?

I ask this because from all the threads/posts I've read on here I understood that it's not illegal to ask but illegal to make a decision based on this.

When I mentioned this to someone (who's not in higher ed) they said they disagree and that it's illegal in all jobs (as far as they know).

Just wanted clarification , that's all.

[msparticularity]

These might help:

http://usfweb2.usf.edu/eoa/interview_faq.asp
http://www.stat.washington.edu/jobs/questions/
http://www.uwec.edu/career/online_library/illegal_ques.htm

Sometimes Google is the quickest way to get an answer.

That's what I did but they say that it's 'unlawful'...so that is different from illegal right?

I ask this because from all the threads/posts I've read on here I understood that it's not illegal to ask but illegal to make a decision based on this.

When I mentioned this to someone (who's not in higher ed) they said they disagree and that it's illegal in all jobs (as far as they know).

Just wanted clarification , that's all.

The University of Wisconsin system has a page with an overview of the relevant law regarding discrimination in hiring. While a couple of the sections pertain to Wisconsin law, the federal law is there as well.

Keep in mind that much of what you're finding through Google is often just opinion in blogs and posts, and is typically based upon an individual's personal experience and/or what they've been told in a specific setting. Also, remember that individual states may have more stringent laws, and that higher education systems and institutions may have very specific regulations prohibiting asking about these categories--which would very definitely be rules, but are not laws.

[browneyedgirl]

^

Thank you msp :)

[fiona]

I disagree that this sort of information is readily available on facebook and/or google. I guess, if someone probed quite a bit or hacked my account (which has been deactivated through the duration of the job search and will only be activated again when I finish my degree), they could find that information. Even when I was on FB, my settings were ultra-private (for different reasons). I routinely checked my settings logged in from my husband's account and a fake account (I shared no "common friends" with the fake person). One could not even access my profile picture. I've made myself untaggable and then, even before that, my tagged pictures were private. I'm sure a s*** never to take a picture of myself even with a drink in my hand.

A google search turns up lots of info for me. It's all related to my teaching and academic career. But even on sites like spokeo and others, there's no indication of my marital status. In fact, even a search of my husband and my name paired together yield nothing.  There's certainly no information about whether I'm a parent or not. And, there's no images of me anywhere. I studiously avoid pictures (for vanity reasons).

I'm not saying that information isn't readily available. I just don't think that this is generally true.  

If we had a job applicant who was not present on the Net, we would suspect that the candidate had something serious to hide. You're much better off having an innocuous Facebook page, with no picture and just a few bland items of information. Otherwise you can some across as sinister or paranoid or deceptive.

The Fiona

[scampster]

I disagree that this sort of information is readily available on facebook and/or google. I guess, if someone probed quite a bit or hacked my account (which has been deactivated through the duration of the job search and will only be activated again when I finish my degree), they could find that information. Even when I was on FB, my settings were ultra-private (for different reasons). I routinely checked my settings logged in from my husband's account and a fake account (I shared no "common friends" with the fake person). One could not even access my profile picture. I've made myself untaggable and then, even before that, my tagged pictures were private. I'm sure a s*** never to take a picture of myself even with a drink in my hand.

A google search turns up lots of info for me. It's all related to my teaching and academic career. But even on sites like spokeo and others, there's no indication of my marital status. In fact, even a search of my husband and my name paired together yield nothing.  There's certainly no information about whether I'm a parent or not. And, there's no images of me anywhere. I studiously avoid pictures (for vanity reasons).

I'm not saying that information isn't readily available. I just don't think that this is generally true.  

If we had a job applicant who was not present on the Net, we would suspect that the candidate had something serious to hide. You're much better off having an innocuous Facebook page, with no picture and just a few bland items of information. Otherwise you can some across as sinister or paranoid or deceptive.

The Fiona

Well, in WCG's defense, she does come up in searches, just teaching and research stuff, not personal stuff. My Facebook page is not google-able, although you can find me with a search within Facebook if you really wanted to. But I also have a professional webpage that comes up near the top of a google search - you won't find out if I am married or not, but there are enough photos of me doing research that search committees can check out how hawt I am. I'm really not sure one could tell my marital status from an internet search, although maybe absence of such evidence that I am married, one would just assume I'm single.

[oldadjunct]

If we had a job applicant who was not present on the Net, we would suspect that the candidate had something serious to hide. You're much better off having an innocuous Facebook page, with no picture and just a few bland items of information. Otherwise you can some across as sinister or paranoid or deceptive.

The Fiona

Lack of evidence is evidence at your place?

[oldadjunct]

[derail]
Not at all directed to BEG, but this is a wonderful example of an important misperception that the web can make any and all of us instant experts on complex. nettlesome subjects.  Not entirely web based, but witness "I read the Bible/Quran/Constitution/HRxxxxx and it says....."  I fear that we become simplistic about the importance of nuanced expertise and interpretation as we gather ever more available data.

BEG, I can tell you with great certainty that there are no illegal questions, only dumb ones.  I know this as a former business owner because my high priced Ivy lawyer told me so.  But you don't know me, and I never knew with certainty that my lawyer wouldn't turn to me at any given moment and say, "That was a bad ruling."  My point is that the search for the definitive on-line source for any such question is misguided at the outset.

I am arguing against the belief in personal certainty that seeded the Reformation with mass produced vernacular Bibles.  

[/derail]