Screening and Evaluating Applicants

MYTH: Affirmative Action will result in lowering the standards and reputation of my department.

REALITY: This will not happen if a qualified candidate is selected for the position. A heterogeneous employee population, providing diverse experience, points of view, and talents increases the effectiveness and vitality of a department, as well as the stature and prestige of a university.

The search committee should make every effort to include members of under represented groups among the persons to be interviewed. Before identifying the group, however, the committee should discuss and come to some consensus about the standards for evaluating the applications. Where affirmative action candidates are not included among the candidates to be interviewed, the committee must be prepared to discuss, with the Affirmative Action Officer and the hiring official, how the qualifications of the candidates selected exceed those of affirmative action candidates.

Screening Applicants

In their evaluations, members of the committee should be sensitive to the following:

1. Biases against individuals from lesser known or Historically Black Institutions. An insistence on considering only candidates with degrees or prior work experience at large, mainstream or elite universities is incompatible with affirmative action goals, since such schools have historically denied admission and professional opportunities to women and or people of color. While assessing merit of credentials from lesser known institutions may require more work, to NOT do so is to penalize individuals for a lack of access over which they had no control. It becomes, in essence, penalizing the victims of past discrimination.
2. Biases against candidates who are not active participants in mainstream organizations or networks (i.e. persons of which no one has heard.)
3. Devaluing research and scholarship which focuses on non-white populations or concerns, or which is published in journals considered outside of the "mainstream." Historical biases against work focusing on non-white or female populations are well documented; hence much of this work has not been accepted by mainstream publishers until recently and barriers continue to exist. Consequently, affirmative action applicants should not be evaluated primarily by where they have published, but on the quality of their research including such dimensions as: methodological and/or quantitative skills of analyses, the depth and scope of their research agenda, and their potential for future activity. (It should also be noted that while the numbers of journals willing to accept such research remain small, several major external agencies are interested in funding such research, and thus affirmative action candidates may make a unique contribution to the department in terms attracting outside support for their research.)
4. Devaluing candidates with lukewarm letters of recommendation from professional or graduate school references. Women and persons of color have historically had greater difficulty in attracting mentors in both the graduate school and professional setting. The lack of a mentor or close working relationship with faculty is not always a reflection of the students' level of competence or performance. Consequently, uninspired letters of recommendation may be more a function of a lack of knowledge about the candidate than a reflection of the candidate's true ability. The committee may wish to contact the reference by phone to get a more accurate reading of the relationship between the him/her and the candidate.
5. Devaluing candidates whose prior professional experience focused on working with special populations. Frequently is an incorrect assumption that such positions call for a narrow or restrictive set of skills that are not transferable to other positions. Such assumptions presuppose that only marginally qualified persons or persons with limited professional interests accept such positions. These assumptions also ignore the reality that the majority of persons of color in academe enter higher education initially through affirmative action or special populations positions, and that this phenomenon is a function of hiring practices rather than candidates' professional interest.

In order to safeguard against such biases, committees may wish to employ one or more of the following strategies:

1. Invite all affirmative action candidates meeting the minimum requirements to campus for interviews.
2. Ask the Affirmative Action Officer to review the applications of all affirmative action candidates; this review should be done in the context of other candidates selected for interviews.
3. Conduct telephone interviews with affirmative candidates as a means of gathering more information when determining whom should be invited for campus interviews.
4. Ask other members of the hiring unit to conduct "blind reviews" of the applicants, with names, gender and ethnicity concealed where possible.
5. Where some questions persist about candidates' credentials, ask for additional references, copies of research articles or other samples of work, etc. to assist in the evaluation.)
6. Resist eliminating any affirmative action candidates exclusively on the basis of a paper review, i.e. without at least one "personal" contact, whether it be a telephone call to a reference, a nominator or to the candidate.

Interviewing Applicants

The goals of the interviewing process should include selling the candidates on the merits of the position as well as offering a more thorough opportunity for evaluating candidates' credentials. To make the most of the time intensive interviewing process, advance preparation on the part of the committee should be utilized as much as possible. The following steps are useful in preparing for interviews and conveying a sincere interest to the candidates:

A. Preparation

1. Be as thorough in attention to detail as possible when making arrangements for campus visits; haphazard planning communicates a lack of real interests.

2. Confirm arrangement for campus visits as far in advance as possible, and in writing; with the advent of fax machines, even last minute arrangements can be confirmed in writing. The arrangements should include where the candidate will be picked up and by whom, where she/he will be housed during the visit, and when they can expect the visit to formally conclude. An itinerary for the day should be included or made available as soon as the candidate arrives.

3. Be thoughtful in determining whom it will be that candidates meet; do not unnecessarily extend the interview by including numerous "courtesy calls." Do include persons with whom the candidate may interact, and do explain to the candidate the relevance of each person on the interview schedule. Ask candidates if there are individuals with whom they may like to meet, or if there are particular questions that may best be answered by individuals outside of the interview process.

4. Prepare a list of questions that will be posed to all of the candidates. Review the questions in advance to be certain that they do not reflect any hidden biases or assumptions, and that they will not unfairly penalize affirmative action candidates.

5. Avoid altering the agreed upon itinerary. Confirm appointments with persons on the interview schedule the day before each interview to avoid no shows and, if necessary, to identify possible replacements.

6. Avoid large unscheduled gaps of time; although, schedule breaks during the day for the candidate to breathe and reflect on the day.

In order to facilitate full participation it is useful to distribute a schedule, listing all interviews, dates, and times, to affected individuals including the hiring official, Affirmative Action Officer, search committee, department staff and others on the interview schedule.

B. Conducting the Interviews

1. Encourage candidates to ask questions; answer them as candidly as possible.

2. Do not attempt to ignore a candidate's gender or ethnicity out of politeness; acknowledge these characteristics, however, it does not entitle the committee members to ask discriminatory or illegal questions (see appendix F for a list of questions you may and may not ask of a candidate.) It does mean that the candidate should be exposed to other members of the campus community with similar backgrounds and that the committee should be prepared to respond to concerns or questions that are specifically related to the candidate's ethnicity or gender. Such questions may relate to the number of women or persons of color on campus, opportunities for advancement, the quality of life on the campus and in the community, and professional, educational, and personal opportunities for their spouse and children where applicable.

3. For faculty searches, discuss the standards for promotion and tenure with all candidates. Be specific about expectations concerning research, teaching and service. Have all candidates attest to the accuracy of their vitae by signing and dating it before they leave the campus (a signed and dated vitae is required for all academic appointments.)

4. Inform candidates of the process and timeline for making a decision. Ask if there are any mitigating circumstances, other offers, extended travel plans, etc. of which the committee should be apprised. Offer the candidates the name and telephone number of the committee Chair, in the event they may have further questions about the position.

If no women or minority candidates are included on the "short list" to be interviewed, the committee chair must meet with the Affirmative Action Officer, prior to beginning the interviews to discuss how the qualifications of the candidates selected for the interview exceed those of the women and minority candidates.

Comments, questions? Send e-mail to: Office of Affirmative Action

© 2006 SUNY Fredonia