Ethical Candidate Screening Marketing Assignment Paper

Part I - Screening Provisions for Minority Candidates
Sandel describes the 1996 court case of a white woman named Cheryl Hopwood who was denied admission to a Texas law school, even though she had higher grades and test scores than some of the minority applicants who were admitted.
You can access the full lecture at http://www(dot)justiceharvard(dot)org/2011/02/episode-09/#watch (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Part I - Share Your Thoughts (10 points): Is it unfair for universities and employers to consider race or ethnicity as a factor in determining access to opportunities? Should jobs, opportunities, and positions of authority be distributed solely on the basis of merit?
The United States Court of Appeals said "yes" in this case and held that the University of Texas School of Law may not use race as a factor in deciding which applicants to admit. Several years later (2003) the Supreme Court ruled "no" in a similar case against the University of Michigan. Stating, the benefits of a racially diverse program "are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints."
Part II - Proven Performance Versus Potential
Do employers extend greater confidence in the abilities of members of the dominant group?
Do employer preferences contribute to sticky floors?
Preview the documentView in a new window Industrial and Labor relations Review, 69(3), 714-736. (Please see attachment)
Baert, De Pauw, & Deschacht (2016) studied the opportunities extended to potential applicants "applying up," or seeking a position above their current role. For their experiment, the authors sent pairs (male, female) of fictitious job applications to real job vacancies and measured the subsequent call backs. They looked specifically at two factors:
occupational level (the same or above the fictional candidates current position)
job-authority level
While they found no significant difference in terms of opportunities based on job-authority level, their results point to discrimination of young women seeking to move above their current position.
Part II - Share Your Thoughts? (10 points): Continuing on the themes of "opportunity" and "diversity" we began in part one of this discussion, answer the following:
Within a vigorous screening process, how do you weigh that "gut feeling" one candidate has greater potential over another candidate equal in background and experience?
How do you avoid unconscious bias in these situations?
Do measures to decrease bias in applicant screening inhibit your ability as an employer to get to know the character and integrity of your future hire?