TAGS: diversity and inclusion, case study, ethics, principles
The following case study discusses ethical considerations when an employer seeks to connect with specific student populations through the career center in order to enhance diversity recruitment efforts. Principles 3, 4, and 5 of the Principles for Ethical Professional Practice are used to address this scenario.
This case study provides insight on the following:
Scenario: An employer contacts the career center about assistance with its diversity recruitment efforts. The recruiter requests a list of junior and senior students who are African American, Asian American, Hispanic, Native American, and students with disabilities to invite to a special dinner where the company will present information about the firm and its available jobs. The company has been a major financial contributor to the school’s diversity retention programs.
While there is no explicit expectation voiced by the recruiter, the career center director (CCD) understands that the company’s high visibility on campus, as well as the importance of its donation to support programs, creates subtle pressure for the CCD to comply with the request. In addition, the company has a steady track record of hiring graduates from the institution, and alumni are well represented within its ranks. The CCD further realizes that although this particular request focuses on an employer wanting to connect with students of color and students with disabilities, the request raises questions that are relevant to a variety of connections employers might seek with students from many diverse identity and affinity groups. The request is therefore an example of a specific question that the career center may need to consider in the larger context of its larger diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.
Analysis: Creating events for specific student populations in an effort to diversify a candidate pool is a common practice for many employers. If such events have proven effective in sourcing diverse talent, they are a logical part of the company’s recruitment strategy. Often, such events engage not only the students, but also the staff and administrators of diversity support units on the campus. The initiative may be regarded as a company’s genuine commitment to living up to its stated values of diversity and inclusion.
The CCD understands the potential value of such programs, but has concerns about the implications for students who are not included. If diversity is defined too narrowly—for example, if the employer invites African-American and Hispanic students, but not women or LGBT students—the effort may seem more like a quota system (which isn’t good for the students invited, either) than a genuine inclusion initiative.
If there aren’t other channels for students to access the employer, such as participation in a career fair or in on-campus interviews that appeal to all potential candidates, students who were not included in the event may feel the company is unfairly excluding applicants based on race or ethnicity. Additionally, the CCD is concerned about the precedent set by providing this kind of special assistance. Any steps taken must be actions the career center would take for any requesting employer, regardless of donor status.
Principles That Apply:
Options for Resolution: The nuances in this case hinge on whether the special dinner the employer wishes to host constitutes an augmentation to its overall recruitment efforts at the institution or a restrictive channel that limits opportunities to only students with certain demographic attributes. As an augmentation effort, determination of which students get invited cannot be based on demographic attributes.
No. This is not only addressed in Principle 5, but also by law, specifically the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Students’ names may not be released to the employer, unless students provide written consent for the disclosure of such information. Even if the CCD does not release the names, but instead offers to send the invitations (on behalf of the employer) to students from designated identity and affinity groups, this is problematic because selecting individuals for the list requires excluding certain students based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or other demographic characteristics. It is also worth noting that not all students disclose demographic characteristics, and the career center may not have accurate and complete data on student demographics. Additionally, should the CCD engage in the selection of appropriate individuals, it is exposing itself (and the educational institution) to potential liability for violation of state and federal EEO laws, statutes, and regulations, as it has now actively participated in the potential discriminatory acts.
Instead, the CCD may recommend student organizations the employer should consider contacting. While this may seem like following the same route, it is different because a) students self-select into organizations and b) student organizations are not exclusive. The CCD should further make it clear, in writing, that it will not be involved actively in selecting students who are appropriate for the event. An even better approach would be introducing the recruiter to one or more of the diversity support offices on campus for assistance with promoting the event, provided it engages in such an endeavor for other recruiters who seek assistance.
The CCD may also recommend broadening the employer’s interpretation of diversity. For example, efforts to reach out to students with disabilities, LGBT students, first-generation students, or student veterans may need to be just as robust as those made to students of color or from specific ethnic backgrounds. Inclusion means casting a wide net that ensures representation in its broadest expression.
While the employer may reasonably restrict attendance to students affiliated with specific organizations or programs, the CCD should advise the employer to also allow these students to attend. Just as diversity career fairs do not exclude students, neither should employer diversity initiatives. To that end, the CCD may recommend combining outreach to student organizations with posting the event for all students in the career center’s database. This may help to ensure that students are not excluded, or inadvertently missed if they don’t belong to one of the student organizations contacted.
Absolutely; in fact, it is recommended that you do. Principle 3 makes it clear that equitable access to students—including students from diverse identity and affinity groups—should not be influenced by donations or other forms of financial support. While this does not oblige the career center to underwrite the expenses of employer diversity outreach initiatives, it does mean that the assistance provided to employers will be equitable.
Other Considerations: Note that in this case, the employer has a track record of recruiting many graduates of the institution over a period of time. This suggests that the employer’s interest in the institution as a core recruiting school is broad-based and that the diversity initiative is an augmentation to its existing efforts. It makes sense to review the scope of the employer’s involvement over time to better understand the context of the request. Perhaps the company has been successful recruiting at the institution except for students from certain backgrounds. The company may need a consultation on how it can better appeal to all students and improve the composition of its candidate pool.
The career center should actively partner with diversity support units on its campus. This practice not only facilitates a more seamless response when similar requests from employers occur, but also it raises the career center’s visibility with students who need assistance. The mission of diversity support units is to connect students with campus resources that can help them succeed and achieve their goals. By building a bridge to these units, the career center becomes an advocate for students from diverse identity and affinity groups and strengthens its own networks. Alliances with diversity support units often prove critical when the career center seeks expertise around diversity and inclusion issues.
Case Study: Career Services for Diverse Identity and Affinity Groups
NACE Statement of Diversity and Inclusion
Reviewed and revised by the 2019 Principles for Ethical Professional Practice Committee. Posted September 2019.
Percent of staff time spent student-facing
Median number of FTE professional staff
Median number of students per professional staff member
Percent of budget spent on personnel costs
Percent of career centers with employer partnership programs
Percent of career center leaders with title “executive director”
2019-20 Career Services Benchmark Survey Report