¾«Æ·SMÔÚÏßӰƬ

As mentioned in Step 2 (Forming an Inclusive Hiring Committee), a strong hiring committee should beÌýcomposed of individuals who represent diverse social categories. It is especially important that hiring committees compriseÌýfaculty and/or program affiliates who are members of underrepresented groups. Hiring committees should also be trained to recognize and counteractÌýimplicit bias. It is important to note, however, that some suggests implicit-bias training can be marginally effective, ineffective, and evenÌýcounterproductive—depending on how it is administered and how trainees perceive it.Ìý

Addressing Implicit and ExplicitÌýBiases

While explicit bias may be relativelyÌýeasy to recognize andÌýaddress, implicit (unconscious) bias is much more insidious. To mitigate implicit bias, everyone involved in hiring decisions must be willing to confront the uncomfortable reality that despite their best intentions, their perceptions are influenced byÌýunconscious biases. They must also take precautionary steps to identify these biases and ensure they do not impact hiring decisions.Ìý

Biases in Letters of Recommendation

AsÌýmentioned inÌýStep 3 (Advertising the Position to Attract a Diverse Applicant Pool), letters of recommendation are prone to reflect implicit biases. For this reason, if they are collected at all, they should be collected late in the search process—when the hiring committee already has a well-definedÌýunderstanding of applicants' strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, those who evaluate letters of recommendation, should be trained toÌýrecognizeÌýand counteract implicit bias.Ìý

Relationship Biases

Bias can also come into play when people areÌýasked to evaluate applicants they know. It is important that committee members areÌýforthcoming in regard toÌýexisting connections with applicants. Committee members must honestlyÌýassess whether theyÌýcan be unbiased. If not, they shouldÌýremove themselvesÌýfrom reviewing theÌýapplicants in question.

Institutional Bias

One form of bias that can be especially prevalent and highly tolerated in academic circles is institutional bias. It operates on the assumption that elite institutions employ more stringentÌýcurricula, and thereforeÌýbetter prepareÌýgraduate students for the rigors of an academic career. It is true that theÌýquality of professional training varies from institution to institutionÌýand advisor to advisor.ÌýOn a whole, elite universities have competitive admissions programs and high academic standards, which can make their graduates strong candidates for academic careers.ÌýBut theÌýautomaticÌýassumptionÌýthatÌýapplicantsÌýfrom these institutions are inherently superior to other applicants is fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, this logic reproduces systems of inequity. Hiring committees should therefore devise other means of assessing the quality of applicants' scholarship.

"Beauty" Bias and Affect Bias

Hiring committees should be conscious about biases that have to do with applicants' perceived physical "attractiveness."ÌýThey should also be on the lookout forÌýbiases that have to do withÌýhow applicantsÌýpresent themselves (e.g. dress, personal affect, etc.). Such biases stem fromÌýsocietal narratives that are often racist, sexist, ableist, etc.ÌýHiring authoritiesÌýshould interrogateÌýdiscriminatoryÌýassumptions about how physical appearance correlates with (reflects)Ìýsocial values/constructs like "intelligence," "professionalism," and "competence." Moreover, they should understand how such assumptions reproduce structural inequity.Ìý

Additional Resources

For valuable information on mitigatingÌýbias, please seeÌýÌý²¹²Ô»åÌý,Ìýwhich are located inÌý¾«Æ·SMÔÚÏßӰƬ's Faculty Search Process Manual.Ìý

Ìý

If you want to return to Step 4, clickÌýhere.

If you want to return to the ENVS faculty-hiring protocolsÌýHome Page, clickÌýhere. Ìý