Answering the “What are you?” Questions

           If I asked, “Who are you?” would you be worried? Most of us answer some form of that question every day, for example when you call your doctor to make an appointment and they ask for your name and birthdate. As a recruiter, and, for that matter, simply as an office drone, I ask ten people a day to identify themselves, just so I can tell whoever they called to talk to that it’s “Dr. Hassan” on the line. Whether it’s writing an essay on “Who Am I?” for Intro to Philosophy, putting on a name-tag at a conference, or submitting a resume for a potential new job, we all describe who we are many times, to many different people, in many different circumstances. 

           Then along come the “what” questions and the whole complexion of the inquiry changes. 

           As a recruiter working on behalf of institutions that often are recipients of public money, one of the tasks I have is to figure out the demographics of the people applying for positions. To put it bluntly, my clients need to know how many candidates from underrepresented groups are entering their searches. The mechanism I use to obtain that information is the classic “EEO Survey.” In the case of our firm, this is an online form with six or eight questions asking applicants to identify their gender, race or ethnicity, and a couple other specific characteristics, depending on what the client needs to be able to report to the state or federal government. 

Finding out this information is incredibly important. In some cases, if there is not enough evidence that the search elicited a broadly diverse applicant pool, the whole recruiting process has to start over. In many cases, this kind of data can impact the institution’s ability to receive public money. In most cases, institutional policy itself calls for assuring that all qualified professionals have the opportunity to consider applying for the position.

           Our firm is always careful, as are others in the field, to let candidates know that completing the survey is voluntary, and that their specific information will not be personally identifiable, but that their answers are very important to us and to our client. We do everything but beg people to give us the data. Still, many candidates fail to fill out the simple form. Why?

           I hear Elvis Presley singing in my mind. “Suspicion torments my heart. Suspicion keeps us apart. Suspicion, why torture me?” (Yes, I know I am dating myself. I listen to Bach too, but that doesn’t make me 200!) 

           It is really hard not to think that somehow, revealing the answers to the “what” questions will tip the scales against us.  I hear Caucasian candidates express the belief that saying they are white will put them out of the running, while African American or Hispanic candidates say revealing their ethnicity will prevent them from being considered for the exact same job. It is really hard not to believe, all of my virtuous disclaimers to the contrary, that we recruiters and our clients are not sitting around matching up EEO data with resumes and putting Xs on the ones we want to eliminate on grounds of ethnicity, gender, disability, or some other specific quality. It’s really hard to accept that, with all that juicy data just sitting there waiting to be used to discriminate against someone, no one is picking and choosing who advances in a search based on their own, personal agenda. It’s hard to believe, but it’s true.

           Whether you are black or white, man or woman, old, like me, or young as a spring chick, it may help to know that everyone else who is applying for that job you would love to have, feels just as insecure and paranoid as you do about sharing the “what” of who they are.

           Here are the things you need to look for. First, no one should require you to fill out EEO data in order to participate in a search. Compliance is supposed to be voluntary. Second, the employer or the search firm should offer you an assurance, preferably in writing, that your data will not be personally identifiable, but will be aggregated anonymously with that of other candidates. (There ARE exceptions to this, but they are few and far between and you should ask for a complete explanation.) Third, the procedure should be that the data you provide will go to the human resources department, not to whoever is doing the selecting, like a search committee. In a best-case scenario, it won’t go anywhere until after the search closes. If those factors are in place, you should feel safe to share your “whats”, knowing that you are providing critical data for the employer, the recruiter, and for society at large, which will be impacted by the numbers when it comes to public policy and public spending.

           For most searches there is going to be one winner and a whole bunch of qualified, wonderful, capable, runners-up.  When you find yourself on the sideline watching someone else get the gold medal, it will be tempting to wonder if revealing your “whats” cost you the job, but there is a simple and pragmatic truth about discrimination and the hiring process. If an employer is going to discriminate based on race, gender, age, or whatever, they don’t need an EEO form for evidence. Sooner or later they will see your face.

I can’t make you believe it, but from inside the hiring process, let me assure you that in 18 years I have never seen an example of an individual eliminated from a search because of the “what” that showed up on an EEO form, and if I did see it, that employer would be the last place I would want one of my candidates to apply, regardless of their “whats.” Believe it or not, I think most recruiters and most employers are right there with me.