equity.ucla · resume screen Emily or Lakisha R: Bertrand & Mullainathan 04 Black named vitas 50%...

equity.ucla.edu

introduction

destination

driftingoff-course:implicit bias

coursecorrection

conclusion

VC Kang, Faculty Search Committe Briefing 2015 10 06.mmap - 10/6/2015 - Mindjet

introduction

VC for EDIfaculty member since 1995

newoffice

July 1, 2015

startup + turnaround mode

http://equity.ucla.edu

role in hiring

Faculty SearchCommittee Briefing

UCLA Recruit

run by AcademicPersonnel

http://recruit.apo.ucla.edu

gatekeeping role

1. Search Plan

2. Applicant Pool Report

3. Shortlist Report

lockWaiver of Search

Waiver for Internal Search

faculty search policymemorandum will bereleased soon

Equity Advisors haveaccess to drafts

goal

training that I wouldhave wanted

my assumptions

you're busy

you're skeptical

you also want to do theright thing

evidence-basednot only what you should do

but why you should do it


destination

where are we trying to go?

a search committee"searches"

but for what?

answers

off the cuff answer

candle-power

bandwidth

smarts

merit

excellence

better answer

the Trinity

research

teaching

service

note: not optional

APM 210-1-d: Criteria forAppointment, Promotion,and Appraisal

example: cannot blow off teaching

still better answer

how are we doing?

Q&A


still better answer

Inclusive Excellence contributions to

Equity

Diversity

Inclusion

why might we wantdiversity?

diversity defined

variance

UC Diversity Statement(2006, 2010)

Race

Ethnicity

Language

Gender

Gender identity

Sexual orientation

Religion

Age

Disability

Socioeconomic status

Geographic region

APM - 015 Faculty Codeof Conduct nondiscrimination

its value

functional value

what work "diversity" does

business case fordiversity

pedagogical case for diversity

signaling value

what "diversity" signifies

fair procedures were used

we have achieved asociety where positionsof status and significanceare open to all

note: not optionalAPM 210-1-d (effective2015 07 01)


how are we doing?

Fall 2015 statsFall 2015 FacultyOrientation Slides.pptx

what's obvious disparity exists

what's contested

cause of disparity

no supply pipeline problem

discrimination

do you discriminate?

answer

of course not!

remember the dream

MLK, Jr.: "content of theircharacter, not color oftheir skin"

are you sure? are you sure?


PHYS SCI LIFE SCI PROFESSIONAL HUM/SOC SCI HEALTHSCIENCES CS/MATH/ENG EDUCATION

Nat Am 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.8% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%Afr Am 0.6% 3.1% 4.7% 5.0% 2.7% 1.0% 14.8%Chic/Lat 2.9% 6.2% 7.0% 8.3% 4.6% 1.0% 14.8%Asian 16.5% 15.4% 13.0% 13.1% 21.0% 34.5% 13.0%White/Other 80.0% 75.4% 73.7% 72.7% 71.3% 63.6% 57.4%

80.0% 75.4% 73.7% 72.7% 71.3%63.6%

57.4%

16.5%15.4%

13.0% 13.1% 21.0% 34.5%

13.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 UCLA Faculty Headcount by Race/Ethnicity and Field Representation (Grand Total = 1,481)

50.0%55.2%

60.8% 61.4%68.6%

83.6% 87.3%

50.0%44.8%

39.2% 38.6%31.4%

16.4% 12.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

EDUCATION HEALTHSCIENCES

LIFE SCI HUM/SOC SCI PROFESSIONAL PHYS SCI CS/MATH/ENG

Male Female

2015 UCLA Faculty Headcount by Gender and Field Representation (Grand Total = 1,481)

2015 UCLA Faculty New Hires by Race/Ethnicity 2005-06 through 2014-15 (Grand Total = 682*)

05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15Afr Am N 5.0% 3.8% 3.6% 4.8% 5.0% 5.3% 15.6% 3.3% 6.3% 12.5%Asian 16.7% 26.0% 14.5% 20.2% 31.7% 18.4% 20.0% 23.3% 35.9% 18.8%Chic/Lat 13.3% 7.7% 8.4% 9.6% 6.7% 13.2% 6.7% 3.3% 3.1% 4.7%Nat Am 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 3.3% 2.6% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0% 1.6%White/Other 65.0% 62.5% 73.5% 64.4% 53.3% 60.5% 57.8% 66.7% 54.7% 62.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

*11 faculty with unknown race/ethnicity excluded

2015 UCLA Faculty New Hires by Gender 2005-06 through 2014-15 (Grand Total = 693)

05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15Female 35.0% 27.6% 30.1% 41.0% 38.3% 52.6% 37.0% 47.5% 34.8% 29.0%Male 65.0% 72.4% 69.9% 59.0% 61.7% 47.4% 63.0% 52.5% 65.2% 71.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FacultySearch Committe

Briefing

VC-EDI Jerry Kangequity.ucla.edu

introduction

destination


implicit bias

don't ask, measure!

consequence

Q&A

coursecorrection

conclusion



implicit bias

schemas: "templates ofknowledge"

applies to people also

attitudes andstereotypes matter

on the margins

2 walls

willing?

explict bias:introspectivelyaccessible

what 1933princeton studentssaid

able?

implicit bias:introspectivelyunaccesible

Edouard Claparède &Korsakoff’s syndrome

implicit memory

don't ask, measure!

need for speed

IAT

project implicit data

consequence

Q&A


consequence

resume screen

Emily or LakishaR: Bertrand & Mullainathan 04

IAT + resumestudy: anti ArabR: Rooth 2007

interview

awkward exchangesR: McConnell & Leibold 01

smiling facesR: hugenberg, bodenhausen 2003

self-fulfilling prophecies

call backsagentic backlashR: Rudman & Glick 01

job talksR: Kang, Dasgupta

butterfly effect

meta-analyses

medical common senseR: Meyer et al 2001

even for academics?

pipelineR: Milkman, Akinola, Chugh 2014

CV reviewR: Steinpreis et al 1999


consequence

resume screen

Emily or LakishaR: Bertrand & Mullainathan 04

Black named vitas 50%less likely to beinterviewed

IAT + resumestudy: anti ArabR: Rooth 2007

Arab/Muslim named vitas3X less likely to beinterviewed

1 SD higher stereotype--> 12% reduction ininterview probability

interview

awkward exchangesR: McConnell & Leibold 01

nonverbal leakage

correlation between IATand interaction ratings

9-16% of varianceexplained

some mixed results

smiling facesR: hugenberg, bodenhausen 2003

when do you see the smile?

does it matter now? .

does implicit attitudepredict how long it takesfor you to see smile?

self-fulfilling prophecies


consequence

call backs agentic backlashR: Rudman & Glick 01

stereotype of women

not agentic

independent

autonomous

competitive

communal

communal

cooperative

kinship

job requirementsjob requires both agentic+ communal qualities

2 identical candidates

one male, one female

both are only "agentic"

neither is communal

who gets higher score?

3.52 (out of 5)

2.84

correlations

not correlated withexplicit self-reports

correlated with IAT(agentic/communal)

worse social ratings (r = -.49)

job talksR: Kang, Dasgupta

butterfly effect

meta-analyses

Black/White domain

Greenwald et al 2009

r = Pearson's correlation

-1 < r < 1

r = .236

pro IAT team

Oswald et al 2013 r = .15

anti IAT team

medical common senseR: Meyer et al 2001

Aspirin --> reduced riskof death by heart attack r = 0.02

ever smoking --> lung cancerr=0.08

low level lead exposure -->reduced childhood IQ r = .12



email any reply within one week?

method

5 race/ethncities x 2 genders

Caucasian

Black

Hispanic

Indian

Chinese

259 universities 6548 faculty subjects

OLS regression models

findings

67% of emails generatedsome response

discriminatory gap

of each race/gender combo


evenforacademics?


CV reviewR: Steinpreis et al 1999

N = 238 academics inpsychology

input: vitaes

actual vitae: used to get initial job biopsychology

flipped names for gender

Karen Miller

Brian Miller

decision

hire applicant?

bias shown in male andfemale academics


coursecorrection

strategies

mindset

debias

decouple

tactics

search plan

pool formation

shortlist

final call backs

deliberations

objections

Q&AVC Kang, Faculty Search Committe Briefing 2015 10 06.mmap - 10/6/2015 - Mindjet

strategies

mindset

1. be humble

2. be mindful

beware of fast

beware of distraction

beware of highemotional states

beware of firstimpressions

3. be motivated to be fair

be internally motivated

not just externallymotivated

everyone wantsdesperately to do better

debias

intergroup contact

debiasing agents

countertypical exemplars

teachersR: Dasgupta & Asgari 04

decouple

decrease subjectivityblinding

orchestra tryoutsR: Gordin & Rouse 2000

tryouts behind screen

female new hiresincreased 25 – 46%.

standardization

increase accountability


increase accountability

MLBR: Parsons et al 2011

does race of pitcher matter?

check to see if racematching betweenumpire and pitchermattered

analyzed every pitch thrown2004-2008

3.5M pitches

31.9% of any pitch called strike

if race-match, goes up to 32.06%

0.16% delta

not statistically significant

but 11 out of 30ballparks had QuesTecinstalled

used to gauge umpireperformance

if > 10% difference incalls, then umpireevaluated as"substandard"

the machine createdaccountability

in QuesTec games race-match had no effect

in non QuesTec games

race-matching lead to0.59% delta

statistically significant at p=.007

NBA

R: Price & Wolfers 2010

ingroup favoritism

Players get 0.18 fewerfouls (per 48 minutes) ifthey match race of refcrew

4% different in fouls

equivalent to 2.5% more points

effect goes away aftermedia attention (2007)R: Price & Wolfers 2013

my office as QuesTec systembut not as NSA

but as coaches


tactics

search plan

you are a "search"committee not a "sort" committee

UC Recruit: Search Plan

committee composition team of rivals

counter ingroupfavoritism by diversifyingcommittee

circulate over time

training

job posting

advertisement languagestandard disclaimer

booster

ad places

e.g. HERC: HigherEducation RecruitmentConsortium

extra stepssend an email

pick up the phone

pool formation

UCLA Recruit: ApplicantPool Report

national availabilitystatistics

provided by AcademicPersonnel, via OP

plausible pool givenavailability?

proactive outreach


shortlist

UCLA Recruit: Shortlist Report

ex ante merit criteria

reviewing paper record

read papers without names

Thomas Meyer memoR: Nextions 2014

same memo

same name: Thomas Meyer

identified as either whiteor African American

60 partners evaluated

quant differenceWhite = 4.1/5.0

African American = 3.2/5.0

qual difference

pass-throughdiscrimination

letters ofrecommendationR: Trix & Psenka 2003

data

all recs from 1992-95 inlarge medical school

of successful candidates

mostly assistant prof

N = 312 letters29% for women

85% recommenders were men

differencesletters for women

shorter

more hedgesfaint praise, andirrelevancies)

more references topersonal life

possessive phrases

awards beget awards

interview

nonverbal leakage

ingroup favoritism

structured interviews

employment law

adopts "blinding"strategy

prohibited questions

Where were you born?

What church do you attend?

Why are you in awheelchair?

Are you married?

Do you have anychildren?

What does your partnerdo for a living?

How old are you?

Dep't Fair Employment &Housing: DFEH-161

but still can be helpful


tactics

final call backs

more interviews + dinner

job talk

same suggestions

equal respect + courtesy

transportation +accommodations

standardize agenda

standardize information

provide usefulinformation aboutwork/life to ALL

standardized job talkprocedures

amount of time forpresentation Q&A

permitted interruptions

who keeps the queue

ask for prompt responseswary of groupthink

have a form

deliberations

grounds rules what's in the record

remind everyone ofdestination inclusive excellence

don't anchor

don't rank immediately

assign devil's advocates /champions

have a form

check confirmation biasseverity toward some

lenience toward others

are these tactics legal?

Prop 209 (1996)

upshot

cannot grant preferentialtreatment to

but also

cannot discriminate against

and must abide byfederal affirmative actionpolicies

reporting requirements

affirmative action torecruit and retain

can value those whofurther equity, diversityand inclusion regardlessof race, gender, etc.


conclusion

John Wooden

A leader’s most powerfulally is his or her ownexample.

It is what you learn afteryou know it all thatcounts.

Do not permit what youcannot do to interferewith what you can do.


equity.ucla · resume screen Emily or Lakisha R: Bertrand & Mullainathan 04 Black named vitas 50%...

Documents

Transcript of equity.ucla · resume screen Emily or Lakisha R: Bertrand & Mullainathan 04 Black named vitas 50%...