There are some things you can’t hide, like skin color or sex. But for those personal characteristics, intrinsic or otherwise, that you can hide, I recommend doing so. Don’t disclose sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc. if you can help it. If you have a clearly ethnic (or ethnic-sounding) first name but a more plain last name, for example, then you may consider putting your first and middle initials on your resume and cover letter rather than spell your names out.
These are unfortunate but sometimes necessary measures some candidates must utilize in order to successfully make it through the application process. Although Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) guidelines legally prohibit companies from rejecting applications based on protected classes (race, sex, religious beliefs, etc.), some bigoted hiring managers disregard these guidelines in practice. They’re able to do so because it’s nearly impossible to file a discrimination claim (as a job-seeker) unless the company is foolish enough to have documented their discriminatory hiring practices in writing. Chances are, they probably aren’t.
Photo by: Leon Riskin via a Create Commons attribution license
Join the forum discussion on this post
Hi Nick.
Thanks for sharing your opinion on this… Racism is out there still. However, trying to hide it only validates the discrimination. Telling people to hide there ethnicity,is like saying we have something to be ashamed of. The only way to change this is to push back. Push back, in my opinion, is the only reason racism is not as bad as it was during slavery. Think of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, They had to FIGHT, for equal rights to win it. I understand where you are coming from. I hope you can see that messages like this, while well intended, can be hurtful.
I hope that my perspective was helpful
Hi Karen,
Thank you for the comment. It certainly opens the blog up to thoughtful discussion!
I think it’s important to distinguish between de jure and de facto discrimination. Lincoln, King, and Malcolm X all fought to change laws, eventually and effectively ending de jure discrimination. De facto discrimination, on the other hand, arises not from statutes and laws but from hearts and minds. Therefore, changes to de facto discrimination are going to be at best incremental; it isn’t a problem that can be solved with the stroke of an executive pen.
I know the message may indeed be hurtful, but that’s because the reality it reflects is also hurtful. Most parents across the country sit their children down for “the talk” at some point in the latter’s teenage years; many black parents feel obligated to have an additional “talk,” directed especially toward their sons, about exercising an extreme sort of caution when around folks who may be suspicious of and hostile towards them, especially authority figures. It is of course appalling that young black men must walk on eggshells in such situations, but I still wouldn’t presume to admonish black fathers for giving that particular “talk” to their sons. It may, at some point, literally be the difference between life and death for the child.
And, for applicants, it may be the difference between a good job and no job. Besides the methods described in the post being a matter of self-preservation that people cannot be faulted for, I think the ends justify the means. What are the ends, in this case? Fewer cases of hiring discrimination, which is ultimately the goal we both would love to see. Here’s my reasoning: minority applicants who make it through the process and nab the job means more folks from all walks of life in successful careers, and I believe the best method for changing hearts and minds is to have a diverse workforce in each industry.