dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (06/02/85)
(I've noticed a great deal of emotional language and personal attacks in net.women and net.politics, lately, and rather a lot of it was coming from my keyboard. I'm going to try to write an entire article without insulting anybody. If politeness works, I may make it a habit.) Those who favor AA, favor it as a means of remedying discrimination. Those who oppose AA see it as a form of inverse discrimination and/or another expensive government program. Much emotional bickering then follows. Rather than just opposing AA, I think I can offer an alternative which could stop discrimination, and would not result in inverse discrimination. Somebody made a remark to the effect that you can only stop discrimination if you make it impossible for an employer to know the race and sex of a job applicant. This was meant to sound ridiculous, I think, but something very much like it *can* be accomplished. There is no reason why the person who interviews job applicants has to be the same person who makes the decision who to hire. Let the interviewer write up a 'spec sheet' for each applicant in which any information as to the applicants race, gender or nationality is suppressed. A decision must be made beforehand as to what information is to be included. Level of education, for example, but not which school the applicant studied at, because that would be a clue to the applicant's nationality. Work history might include information as to the size of the company the applicant worked for, and the responsibilities of the applicant in that company, but could not actually identify the company, because that, too, is a clue. The applicant's name, of course, can't be included. Let the spec sheets then be passed from the interviewer to the "decider", for the making of the final decision. To reduce the possibility of dishonesty, there could be an "interview quality control officer" who reinterviews 1 out of "n" applicants just to make sure the interviewer is interviewing accurately, and not passing subtle messages to the decider. (By the way, I intend this as a scheme that companies would implement voluntarily. The only government role I can bring myself to approve of in this is as a distributor of information on how to implement this "affirmative non-discrimination" scheme.) Does anybody see anything fundamentally wrong with this idea? (I mean, aside from the fact that I don't want it enforced?) -- David Canzi Permission is not freedom.
robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (06/05/85)
In article <1447@watdcsu.UUCP>, dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: > Somebody made a remark to the effect that you can only stop > discrimination if you make it impossible for an employer to know the > race and sex of a job applicant. This was meant to sound ridiculous, I > think, but something very much like it *can* be accomplished. > > Does anybody see anything fundamentally wrong with this idea? > (I mean, aside from the fact that I don't want it enforced?) Would *YOU* want to go to work for some company without ever having met your new supervisor or co-workers? If you were hiring someone to work closely with you, would you hire an obnoxious twit with good credentials, when you could find someone more or less equally qualified whom you could get along with? If you EXPECT to hate your job, your co-workers, your supervisors, and your employees, this plan will help things to live down to your expectations. -- -- Robert Plamondon {ucbvax!dual!turtlevax,ihnp4!resonex}!weitek!robertp
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/05/85)
> Somebody made a remark to the effect that you can only stop > discrimination if you make it impossible for an employer to know the > race and sex of a job applicant. This was meant to sound ridiculous, I > think, but something very much like it *can* be accomplished. > > There is no reason why the person who interviews job applicants has to > be the same person who makes the decision who to hire. Let the > interviewer write up a 'spec sheet' for each applicant in which any > information as to the applicants race, gender or nationality is > suppressed. A decision must be made beforehand as to what information > is to be included. Level of education, for example, but not which > school the applicant studied at, because that would be a clue to the > applicant's nationality. Work history might include information as to > the size of the company the applicant worked for, and the > responsibilities of the applicant in that company, but could not > actually identify the company, because that, too, is a clue. The > applicant's name, of course, can't be included. Seems to me this only changes who discriminates; now it'll be the interviewer, rather than the hirer. David Rubin
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (06/06/85)
In article <657@fisher.UUCP> david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) writes: >> There is no reason why the person who interviews job applicants has to >> be the same person who makes the decision who to hire. Let the >> interviewer write up a 'spec sheet' for each applicant in which any >> information as to the applicants race, gender or nationality is >> suppressed. A decision must be made beforehand as to what information >> is to be included. ... > >Seems to me this only changes who discriminates; now it'll be the >interviewer, rather than the hirer. I thought of that. Since it is decided beforehand what kinds of information can be included on the 'spec sheets', the only way for the interviewer to practice discrimination is by lying and/or omitting relevant information. In part of my article that you didn't quote, I mentioned a second interviewer, spot-checking the first interviewer's work by reinterviewing a random sample of interviewees. This scheme fails only if both of the interviewers are dishonest. The second interviewer can be (a) borrowed from another branch of the company, or (b) rented or borrowed from another company, or (c) from the government. This reduces the likelihood of the interviewers getting chummy and covering for each other. -- David Canzi "When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results." -- Calvin Coolidge
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/08/85)
[ ">>>" and ">" = David Canzi; ">>" and "" = David Rubin >>> There is no reason why the person who interviews job applicants has to >>> be the same person who makes the decision who to hire. Let the >>> interviewer write up a 'spec sheet' for each applicant in which any >>> information as to the applicants race, gender or nationality is >>> suppressed. A decision must be made beforehand as to what information >>> is to be included. ... >> Seems to me this only changes who discriminates; now it'll be the >> interviewer, rather than the hirer. > I thought of that. Since it is decided beforehand what kinds of > information can be included on the 'spec sheets', the only way for the > interviewer to practice discrimination is by lying and/or omitting > relevant information. In part of my article that you didn't quote, I > mentioned a second interviewer, spot-checking the first interviewer's > work by reinterviewing a random sample of interviewees. > This scheme fails only if both of the interviewers are dishonest. The > second interviewer can be (a) borrowed from another branch of the > company, or (b) rented or borrowed from another company, or (c) from > the government. This reduces the likelihood of the interviewers > getting chummy and covering for each other. First, if it employment decisions could be adequately made through the "spec-sheets", there would be no need for interviews at all. The interviewer need not lie on a spec sheet to effectively reject an applicant. Second, a single biased interviewer can still effectively reject marginal applicants. If the first interviewer, e.g., expresses his bias only on those who are on the margin, he will not be evidently abusing the process, and the company is likely to select those marginal applicants recommended by BOTH interviewers. Third, it is not at all unlikely that BOTH interviewers will share the same prejudice, thus subverting the applications of some types of applicants who are well above the margin. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (06/10/85)
In article <663@fisher.UUCP> david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) writes: >> ... a second interviewer, spot-checking the first interviewer's >> work by reinterviewing a random sample of interviewees. > >> This scheme fails only if both of the interviewers are dishonest. The >> second interviewer can be (a) borrowed from another branch of the >> company, or (b) rented or borrowed from another company, or (c) from >> the government. This reduces the likelihood of the interviewers >> getting chummy and covering for each other. > >First, if it employment decisions could be adequately made through the >"spec-sheets", there would be no need for interviews at all. Yes, it would seem so. If the set of relevant criteria was that well-defined, it would only be necessary to send job applicants a questionnaire... Your objection is close to a valid objection. Close but no cigar. See my next posting. > The >interviewer need not lie on a spec sheet to effectively reject an >applicant. The interviewer's only way to influence the hiring decision is by what he writes on the spec sheet. How can he do that other than by lying? >Second, a single biased interviewer can still effectively reject >marginal applicants. If the first interviewer, e.g., expresses his >bias only on those who are on the margin, he will not be evidently >abusing the process, and the company is likely to select those >marginal applicants recommended by BOTH interviewers. > >Third, it is not at all unlikely that BOTH interviewers will share the >same prejudice, thus subverting the applications of some types of >applicants who are well above the margin. The second interviewer, if "borrowed" and employed in the way I have suggested: 1) only checks on the work of the first interviewer, and has no influence on the hiring process 2) doesn't know the first interviewer, and so wouldn't care if the first interviewer is fired for falsifying the data 3) is bound to notice systematic innacuracies, even when they only happen to marginal applicants -- David Canzi "With the exception of victimless crimes (which need not concern us here) every single crime committed in this nation of ours involves a victim." -- San Francisco Chronicle
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (06/10/85)
In article <214@weitek.UUCP> robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) writes: >Would *YOU* want to go to work for some company without ever having met your >new supervisor or co-workers? If you were hiring someone to work closely >with you, would you hire an obnoxious twit with good credentials, when you >could find someone more or less equally qualified whom you could get along >with? I hadn't thought of that, possibly because my job doesn't require working closely with anybody else. It certainly makes the process of getting a job riskier, eg. I could end up having to work closely with a cigar smoker or a born-again Christian... *sigh* Oh, well. It *seemed* like a great idea. -- David Canzi If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names. -- Plutarch
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/11/85)
[">>>",">" = David Canzi, ">>","" = David Rubin] >>> ... a second interviewer, spot-checking the first interviewer's >>> work by reinterviewing a random sample of interviewees. >>> This scheme fails only if both of the interviewers are dishonest. The >>> second interviewer can be (a) borrowed from another branch of the >>> company, or (b) rented or borrowed from another company, or (c) from >>> the government. This reduces the likelihood of the interviewers >>> getting chummy and covering for each other. >>First, if it employment decisions could be adequately made through the >>"spec-sheets", there would be no need for interviews at all. > Yes, it would seem so. If the set of relevant criteria was that > well-defined, it would only be necessary to send job applicants a > questionnaire... Your objection is close to a valid objection. Close > but no cigar. See my next posting. I think you have a narrow view of what it is an interviewer does. See MY next posting. >> The >>interviewer need not lie on a spec sheet to effectively reject an >>applicant. > The interviewer's only way to influence the hiring decision is by > what he writes on the spec sheet. How can he do that other than > by lying? The point of an having an interviewer is to evaluate information which is not apparent on any spec sheet; such information is often subjective and therefore unverifiable. Thus, an interviewer's evaluations cannot be proven to be "lies" (willful misrepresentation of fact), but rather can be attributed to a legitimate "difference of opinion", even if the interviewer is actually prejudiced against the applicant. >>Second, a single biased interviewer can still effectively reject >>marginal applicants. If the first interviewer, e.g., expresses his >>bias only on those who are on the margin, he will not be evidently >>abusing the process, and the company is likely to select those >>marginal applicants recommended by BOTH interviewers. >>Third, it is not at all unlikely that BOTH interviewers will share the >>same prejudice, thus subverting the applications of some types of >>applicants who are well above the margin. > The second interviewer, if "borrowed" and employed in the way I > have suggested: > 1) only checks on the work of the first interviewer, and has no > influence on the hiring process > 2) doesn't know the first interviewer, and so wouldn't care if the > first interviewer is fired for falsifying the data > 3) is bound to notice systematic innacuracies, even when they only > happen to marginal applicants > -- > David Canzi I presume that you are suggesting that the second interviewer compile the RESULTS of the first interviewers work and analyze them statistically. Mere knowledge of such a system will cause most first interviewers (who wish to keep their job) to alter their behavior in such a way as to damage their utility to the employer: they will probably consciously select people on the basis of race, sex, etc., so that their numbers look good (maybe even better than expected...). Instead of making the hiring process color-blind, your system would then make it color-conscious, with interviewers apportioning jobs by informal quotas in order to preserve their position. Is this an improvement? Also, you have avoided the problem of the second interviewer's possible bias. What if he were to simply not report discrepancies? And if you are going to dismiss him if he fails to uncover prejudice, might you not force him to "find" discrimination even if there is none? David Rubin
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (06/13/85)
All an interviewer has to say is that the applicant is not "product oriented" or that the person is a "basic researcher" or an "academic". The interviewer can ask "Would this person really do something that was not related to the subject of his/her thesis?" In most companies, this is enough to get an applicant rejected. I saw a perfectly competent (Chinese male) applicant rejected from a job only on thse grounds. Any new Ph.D. is eligible for this classification. Linda S.