The Brookings Institution wants more women and minorities to apply for its job openings. Like this one. But only if they’re qualified.
If you’re scratching your head right about now, here’s how it ends a recent job ad for a program administrator. Brookings tacks this puzzling statement on the end of all of its advertisements:
We strongly encourage qualified women and minorities to apply. (Only applicants meeting minimum qualifications for the position will be considered. No phone calls please.) EOE M/F/H/V
I had a nice fuzzy feeling about telling my friends to go work at Brookings until I saw this statement. Now, I would assume that anyone applying to a job at Brookings would think themselves to be qualified. So, as a woman of color, I was taken aback by the language that makes it sound as if women and minorities are not usually qualified. Therefore, Brookings felt the need to reiterate that if you are woman or a minority, you had better have your stuff together.
It raised the question in my mind: so then it must be OK for unqualified white men to apply? If the intent was to discourage unqualified applicants from submitting their résumés, I get that.
But Brookings could have simply said, “We strongly encourage qualified professionals to apply” or something like that. The fact that this statement preceded what is usually a warm invitation for diverse candidates was what rubbed me the wrong way. I would never apply to work for an organization that appears to doubt my qualifications as a woman and a person of color.
It rubbed me so wrong that I felt compelled to call Brookings and ask why in the world they used that particular language.
Zarina Durrani, its director of human resources, responded that Brookings has “had this wording for quite a while now and no one has ever questioned it.”
But she said that she could see how someone might take it the wrong way. After a lengthy conversation, it was clear that Brookings’s legal counsel had a lot to do with the wording of its job descriptions, to the point where the organization would have to consult with its legal team to change the wording to something more amenable to potential applicants.
That has not yet happened. And I wonder if the group ever stops to consider whether the language it is using is actually what’s preventing it from attracting the diverse work force it apparently desires.
While I hold Brookings up as an example of what not to do, it’s clear that it is not the only nonprofit organization that struggles with finding diverse talent, in particular people of color.
Indeed, a 2007 Johns Hopkins University study showed that more than half of nonprofit groups report having a hard time recruiting candidates of color. But that’s mainly because only about a third of the organizations implemented strategies specifically designed to attract people of color.
So, therein lies the problem. If nonprofit groups want a more diverse work force, we definitely have to do something a little extra to attract new leaders.
But in implementing those efforts, we really have to make sure we avoid offending the very people we want to engage.
8 Responses to How Not to Do Diversity
missyd - May 19, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Well said.
acfitzgerald - May 19, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Why do you think this is directed to women or minorities? It sounds to me like anyone can apply, they encourage women & minorities, but only those people (white, male, female, minority, etc) meeting the qualifications will be considered. Having done a lot of hiring, I know that many times people apply for jobs they are not qualified for. Maybe it doesn’t need to be said but I don’t think it’s directed at any particular group.
areyoukiddingme - May 19, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Seriously? I’m surprised that The Chronicle of Philanthropy has provided a platform for this rant disguised as an informative news article. How in the world one could deduce that Brookings is suggesting that minority women are not qualified is beyond me. Spend some time in the hiring process and you’ll soon discover that valuable time is taken away from providing services to those in need because of the necessity of weeding through mountains of unqualified applications. Stating that applicants must meet minimum qualifications should not be confused with anything other than that the organization expects qualified applicants.The fact that Brookings is strongly encouraging qualified women and minorities to apply is admirable. But as a white male, do I not have the same justification to write a similar piece from the perspective that white men are being discouraged from even applying.”Doing Diversity” right should not be about promoting one ethnic group or gender over another. It should be about removing barriers so that all qualified applicants have opportunities. Organizations should be encouraged to honor and celebrate our cultural differences and embrace that we each bring something unique to the collective. Ms. Thurman, you stated, “Now, I would assume that anyone applying to a job at Brookings would think themselves to be qualified. So, as a woman of color, I was taken aback by the language that makes it sound as if women and minorities are not usually qualified.”Unfortunately, you should have been taken aback by the fact that this organization (and many others like it) attempt to highlight their commitment to creating an inclusive environment by singling out specific groups – which are as they say, “strongly encouraged” to apply. How about we lose the racism card once and for all. And before you say it, No, I don’t know how you are or have been treated. Nor do you know how I am or have been treated. The fact that we are both different and can share that with one another makes us both better and seems to be what Brookings is trying to convey. But the logic you present here quite frankly does not encourage discord it creates wedges.
donadoja - May 19, 2010 at 4:06 pm
This well worded article points to the outcome of bad writing can be unfortunate. Simply reversing the sequence of these 2 sentences, and putting the new 2nd sentence into its own paragraph, could make a difference in what it communicates. Still not the best wording, but better, to my ear:Only applicants meeting minimum qualifications for the position will be considered. No phone calls We strongly encourage qualified women and minorities to apply.
dat1310 - May 19, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Ms. Thurman notes, “If nonprofit groups want a more diverse work force, we definitely have to do something a little extra to attract new leaders.” I think we do and would welcome her suggestions for what that “little extra’ is.
publicallies1 - May 19, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Two things: (1) I think Rosetta is right to point out how the power of words and phrasing can actually hamper a group’s efforts. The Brookings language is unfortunate and the inference she draws is logical. (2) As Donadoja writes, simply changing the order would make this more inclusive. If a group’s aim is to be more inclusive, it needs to be aware of how its messages may hamper its own aims. I am sure that Brookings didn’t mean for this to come off as it does, but it shows some cultural incompetence on their hr/legal side.
wildwomanfundraising - May 23, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Thank you for drawing attention to how wording can make a job posting look biased.Seeing how a lot of nonprofit leadership is recruited OUTSIDE of the nonprofit instead of inside it, perhaps nonprofits could learn to take heed of this, and look at the person of color inside their organization who wants to move up and train them to take over. Mazarinehttp://wildwomanfundraising.com
wjfreeman - June 15, 2010 at 2:40 pm
This is simply exhausting. I agree with areyoukiddingme’s amazement that the Chronicle would give a platform to this winning. But, this is a consistent them of Thurman’s other posts. I recommend that she stop writing — and teaching — and start working in a nonprofit. Her “sensitivities” are misplaced.