|
|
|
|
|
by astrodust
3386 days ago
|
|
I'm speaking about impressions, not the actuality of it. One person's casual attire, which is the norm for a lot of interviews now, might be interpreted as "gang clothes" even when they're clearly not. Like is a simple Kangol t-shirt "gang clothes"? By the same token a Lulu Lemon or Izod shirt is, they're just different "gangs". People have a way of reading into things. A well-dressed black person might look "like a drug dealer" while a scruffy white dude might look "like a real programmer". It's a matter of perception. Our pattern matching is often badly distorted by the media. Improving is always a good idea, but if it completely handicaps entire groups of people it's not necessarily an improvement, it's just shifting the artificial rejection criteria. |
|
Blind interviewing does not handicap anyone. The way to improve the perception of an applicant as a gangster or a rapper is for them to prove it on the job. You want the most qualified right? Hire based on actual qualifications. Implement a dress code for your conscience and get back to business.