Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women
Subject: Re: Alternative Action
Message-ID: <663@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Jun-85 11:38:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.663
Posted: Sat Jun  8 11:38:08 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 03:30:01 EDT
References: <1447@watdcsu.UUCP> <657@fisher.UUCP> <1456@watdcsu.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Princeton University Department of Statistics
Lines: 43
Xref: watmath net.politics:9335 net.women:5640


[ ">>>" 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