I think that’s quite a clever idea.

I think it should be up to the company whether they accept anonymous applications or not.

Sounds like a really great idea, I just can’t see it working in practice.
The big issue here is that the pile of CVs on an employer’s desk is far from the first point in the chain, a significant number go through recruitment agencies and job centres. And while you might be able to keep your gender away from an agent at first (submitting your CV via their website for example) as soon as you are called forward for a first interview they will be phoning you up and the cat is out of the bag.
You could of course legislate to ban recruitment agents, a plan with no drawbacks.

Anonymous applications are a terrific idea but people still have to go through face to face interviews.

I don’t see it as any of the governments business to decide who employers should or should not employ. I also find it strange that a government which has overseen a criminal justice system whereby a minor misdemeanour as a teenager remains on a computer file as a “criminal record” for 100 years (a far bigger potential obstacle to even the most menial employment) is concerned about discrimination based on names (which I think is being used here as a proxy for ethnicity).

I’m amazed – cjcjc agrees with something progressive!

Surely you’re concerned this is a back-door effort to recruit more Asians and women over white toffs?

@Shatterface: It’s much easier to discriminate against a name than a person standing in front of you.

I have no idea what you do, but am prepared to bet that I have personally recruited more Asians and women than you have!

I think it’s a great idea, in fact I was involved in a project a couple of years ago looking into how we could recruit more BME candidates in my workplace, and this was one of the initiatives we considered. In the end I think it was rejected by senior managers, but I know there are places that already do this, especially in the public sector.

I think in some places they have application forms with a detachable front page, the page that contains details like name, DOB (to tackle age discrimination) and so on. Someone detaches these before handing the applications to the people responsible for doing the shortlisting.

Shatterface

“Anonymous applications are a terrific idea but people still have to go through face to face interviews.”

Yes they do, but I think some employers would be shocked to see the change in the numbers of candidates from under-represented groups who suddenly start making it through the first sift and through to the interview stage. I think it’s a wake up call for those employers who assume they don’t have any discriminatory practices, to realise that actually they do, unconscious and unintended though they are.

How exactly would this work for a 10-person small business, where there simply isn’t a dedicated HR person who can anonymise the CVs before passing them onto another HR person and managers ahead of making any interview decisions?

Agreed that it wouldn’t add significant cost, and might have anti-discrimiation benefits, when applied to medium-to-large companies.

Sounds like more statist nonsense rather than being truly progressive. Who will administer it – is it just more government interference? Direct applications are much more common for low-paid jobs, so the higher-paid jobs, which are more often done through head-hunting, agencies etc, will still fall outside of this.

Can someone explain to me how someone who espouses this sort of thing can possibly cope with being in a party with “liberal” in its name?

How would it work within science where the papers you have authored are generally considered the most important part of your CV?

Andrew. I don’t think it would. Just as with some applications whether there’s a name on it or not, the person’s qualifications or their personal statement where they describe their experience/skills and so on will give clues as to age/ethnicity and all the other things the application otherwise attempts to anonymise.

I don’t think there is or can be a 100% foolproof method, but I think what Lynne’s proposing is a positive step in the right direction.

Do you run a really crummy place to work then, cjcjc? Because we know women and Asians (and other ethnic minorities) are underrepresented in the most respectable and well-paid careers, and overrepresented in the least respected and worst-paid! Well done!

By the way, DWP recruitment is currently being handled by an external agency (CAPITA, IIRC).

Are they really best placed to tell other organisations how to recruit?

Of course you are right.
I am in charge of recruiting for all London street cleaning and street walking.

16# – is Lynne Featherstone?

Yes, I tried this myself in making job applications.
In my particular area at least, you initially get a better rate of response to the same CV if you use a name which is male or gender-neutral, than if you use one which is generally female. Fascinating.

The only reason I can see for arguing against anonymous job applications, is if employers don’t want to lose the ability to discriminate on grounds of gender or ethnicity. Surely any employer prepared to admit to such a thing is automatically in breach of equality/human rights legislation.

Looks like a no-brainer to me.

Why not simply pick a random member of the public to fill the post? It worked for that guy in Trading Places.

What about jobs where gender preference is a legitimate requirement e.g “Female psychologist wanted for rape trauma unit” (From the Psychologist magazine, 2008).

I’m sorry but I can only see this sort of thinking in terms of where it inevitably leads, some andrognous dystopia where we are all adressed as “Comrade 120586″……………

You won’t ever, ever take my genitals! I am a man, not a number!

Cjcjc – any jobs going? Might be too white to work in that field, however

It would be funny if someone took a job as a streetwalker, in the belief that all the job required was walking up & down the street for a few hours & being paid.

You’d soon lose that illusion.

Lynne came back aggressively when I posted on her blog some risks associated with doing this, and the comment thread here has pointed out rather more of the problems. Despite my respect for so much of what Lynne has done and is doing, to legislate this idea is statist interference of the wrong sort. OK, I’m not a minority person (white male Protestant British by ancestry at least a few hundred years back)), but I have been an employer (in a very small business) and prior to that did some selecting of candidates in a slightly larger business.
I have also been to the USA a few times over the last 30 years, and noted there (particularly in California) the mix of people working in businesses – equal opportunity seems to work well over there. So how is employment practice determined in the USA? Cultural or legal pressures, or both?

All the practical objections people have made seem to me fair enough, but minor. Of course this idea isn’t foolproof, won’t work in all contexts and only could work up to the point of interview. That doesn’t mean it’s valueless. It’s not necessary to legislate for it, certainly not immediately. It might, though, be worth encouraging employers to try it, and see what the results are; if it works, the government and employment bodies could then move to recommending it generally, unions could negotiate for it, and if it continued to show good results, eventually make it a requirement, say, of being an equal opportunities employer and an investor in people.

If at some point an overwhelming body of evidence is gathered to show the benefits of this approach, if there’s a substantial body of employers who refuse to try it who also have relatively bad discrimination figures, and some thought is given to necessary exceptions – then might be the time to legislate. It’s a lot of ifs.

‘You won’t ever, ever take my genitals! I am a man, not a number!’

They can take my genitals when the prize them from my cold, dead fingers!

I’m in favour of anonymous applications, I just don’t see them as the panacea some people do.

After all, Afro Carribeans are one of the most disadvantaged groups and, save a few forenames which have fallen out of fashion among White people (e.g. Winston), their names are largely indestinguishable from White British people.

And unless gay people adopt camp pseudonyms it isn’t going to make much difference to them either.

Generally speeking, application forms discriminate in favour of people who are good at completing application forms. Take a look at your line manager and ask yourself whether he or she is better at their job than you would be.

More politically correct nonsense!

We tried this at our place, public sector employer with 2.5 thousand FTE staff, and it was favourably received by all involved. Interestingly it did not change the demographic profile of applicants. This suggests that there are other factors at work which our HR bods are looking at, but it was viewed as a positive step anyway.

Am I missing something here? At a cursory glance it all sounds fine – remove potential discrimination by making application forms anonymous. Sounds great and something I don’t have a problem with. The real issue has only been touched on by 1 person in all of the comments and that is #4…

“Anonymous applications are a terrific idea but people still have to go through face to face interviews.”

People do NOT get employed through application forms. They merely get selected for interview. How on Earth can Lynne Featherstone claim (laudatory though the intention is) that this would be…

“providing people with equal opportunities to earn their living, it opens up all sorts of other knock-on benefits in terms of social cohesion and economic efficiency, which we all benefit from”

I’m sorry but this is nonsense. You don’t gain any of those ‘benefits’ by having anonymous application forms. They may get an interview but a racist, sexist, homophobic or disablist employer is hardly likely to see the light and decided to overlook their previous beliefs just because they have a few more ‘minorities’ turning up to interview.

Then again, maybe this is all designed for big corporations with interview panels, where it would be much harder to influence a decision based on the person rather than their skills and experience. Unless of course the whole thing was infected with some form of institutionalised discrimination.

For those of us that run small businesses and employ people personally, to be working with them on a daily basis, it would be impossible to have someone ‘sifting’ applications to make them anonymous and it also doesn’t get away from the fact that the interview is all important.

I feel I have to pre-empt responses by stating I don’t discriminate on any basis, apart from that any applicant has the right skills/experience/aptitude for the job AND they put in a decent performance at the interview but anyone that was in my position but held discriminatory beliefs, is quite able to follow through on these at the interview stage.

This really needs to be taken back to the drawing board. Getting more minorities past the application stage is one thing, turning it into proper equality and ending discrimination in terms of recruitment, is another thing entirely and the proposal would miss the stated aims.

Come on Animal – there’s no way of stopping discrimination at an interview stage unless you plan to interview candidates from behind curtains and with a voice distorter.

Anonymous application forms – in and of themselves a good thing. Next!

Did you read my post Denim? I said they were a good thing but can in no way achieve the stated aims of…

“providing people with equal opportunities to earn their living, it opens up all sorts of other knock-on benefits in terms of social cohesion and economic efficiency, which we all benefit from”

You seem to want to pay lip service to equality measures by backing a proposal that sounds good but has no substance whatsoever.

Political_Animal: “You seem to want to pay lip service to equality measures by backing a proposal that sounds good but has no substance whatsoever.”

Discrimination may continue to exist at the interview stage. But I don’t see how that’s an argument against trying to reduce it at the shortlisting stage? Lynne Featherstone cites the Solicitor General’s remarks about a DWP trial that suggests “significant discrimination”. A quick Google returned this report of a Swedish trial that 40% more women and people with foreign names were called to interviews if the job applications were anonymous:

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2008/09/articles/se0809039i.htm

Incidentally Denim, the suggestion of holding interviews behind a curtain has been used for recruiting to orchestras for many years with some success. I think in most professions it would be pretty impractical, but it’s interesting nonetheless:

http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchtoolkit/docs/articles/Orchestrating_Impartiality.pdf

Good(ish) idea – but…what about that section of the application where you have to say which language you would like to be interviewed in, are you Causation, Black-British, British-Black, Afro-Caribbean, Somali, etc – etc, all for the paper auditors who want to know who you have employed, interviewed etc – all for the benefit of employment equality?

Certainly not knocking the idea in anyway – but it does need a bit more work and especially in areas such as small businesses in how they can implement such changes.

Yes, but aren’t there options for refusing to fill in ethnic origin?

I myself never write mine down. It doesn’t concern them.

@35 that part of the form is normally removed before the rest of it is shown to the panel/staff who chooses which candidates will be invited to interview.

At where I used to work, the name, age and equal ops information would be separated from the app form, leaving all the substantive bits upon which the candidate would be judged.

So this already happens: it’s just a question of whether or not we should roll it out across the country.

@36 yes, gender, ethnicity and disability information is all optional.

@37

Then why the feck is it there in the first place? IF what you say is the case it is a pointless exercise and a waste of ink! Yet – with most bureaucratic bullshit that is a definition of it anyway.

@36, I refused once, and, even though talking to the person face to face, they insisted that I add that information ‘for their records’. I shook my head and left.

For most civil service jobs the equal ops form is seperate and used for monitoring purposes only.

On balance, anonymity is preferable but I disagree with enforcing it by law because it is (a) illiberal to dictate how firms should run themselves without prior proof of wrong-doing (b) unworkable in smaller firms who are still likely to hire those whose faces ‘fit’ at interview stage (and that goes for businesses run by ethnic minorities as much as anyone else), (c) useless where firms are seeking particular individuals with scarce skill sets (in other words, hiring middle-class professionals) rather than interchangeable staff (i.e. working class people or general administration staff) and (d) large firms – in the private sector, at least – which don’t hire the best people for the job will ultimately be outperformed by those who do so the better system will out.

Its not a panacea but would improve the situation in many employers. Just because a measure won’t solve all problems is no reason to dismiss it, as long as it will involve some.

I suspect the final version of any legislation will include exemptions for small employers.

@38 The reason it is “the fuck” there is because every once in a while the employer should compile these forms, gather the data on them and use them to see the differences between the ethnicities/genders/disabilities of those applying, those who get interviewed, and those who get the jobs. That way, if you have 98% of brown people applying, but interviewees are 60% white, you’ve probably got a discrimination problem.

You might think these things are pointless because you’re white, but I doubt (as long as you aren’t thick and/or didn’t get your degree from the back of a cornflakes box/some shitty ex-poly) you will ever have to worry too much about not getting a job on the basis of your skin colour.

Shatterface @28: “After all, Afro Carribeans are one of the most disadvantaged groups and, save a few forenames which have fallen out of fashion among White people (e.g. Winston), their names are largely indestinguishable from White British people.”

Speaking as a white person who has to write the name Winston on job applications, I now wonder whether I have been a past victim of discrimination…

Unlike Shatterface, I suspect that an awful lot of younger black citizens have forenames that may lead to racial discrimination. There are similarly aged white kids with forenames that lead to class discrimination (hello there, Chardonnay and Telford). And I have met a few people with conventional forenames and the surname Ng, and none was white.

Whilst generally agreeing with the principle of anonymity, it isn’t going to work for small organisations or where the candidate’s public record is important (academia, the arts, senior public administration). But haven’t many publicly funded organisations already tried this for some jobs? Is there anything from them that we can learn about when anonymous applications are appropriate and when not?

And once you’ve blanked the name of the applicant from a job form, what other information is pertinent to remove? Home address is an obvious choice, followed by secondary schools. Student employment at the local halal fast food joint is going to have to go, as is activity in the Jewish scout or guides movement. How about the names of referees?

There may also be some interesting lessons from unlikely places such as Japan, where discrimination against Ainu people has been based on names and home address, and where there is a partial desire to end the practice.

I think that we need to set up some codes of good practice, make a few mistakes that can be corrected with least pain, before passing any law.

‘How about the names of referees?’

DEFINITELY get rid of these hangovers from the 18th Centuty.

They usually demand referees who are professional. I felt personally affronted when I applied for a passport and discovered all of my friends were considered too scummy to qualify as referees.

Please just think about this for a minute. #34, to quote you…

“Discrimination may continue to exist at the interview stage.”

Well, what’s the bloody point then!!!

Lynne Featherstone has predicated this proposal on that thi s helps – (and I quote for the THIRD time)…

“by providing people with equal opportunities to earn their living, it opens up all sorts of other knock-on benefits in terms of social cohesion and economic efficiency, which we all benefit from”

It does nothing of the sort. It provides equal opportunities to get through to the interview stage only, it does NOT offer any equal opportunities to earn their living, it opens up no knock-on benefits and it definitely doesn’t help social cohesion.

This is tinkering, pure and simple. It does nothing to end discrimination in recruitment. An attempt at ending discrimination in only a part of the recruitment process, is nothing unless it goes on to end discrimination full stop.

Let’s take as an example a black, gay, female, wheelchair user – I have had lots of problems even getting an interview. Then, this proposal becomes law. Hurray, I have an interview because the application form was anonymous and the employer doesn’t know I am not a white, male, straight, able-bodied person. I feel good. I go to the interview. Oops, I don’t get the job because the interviewer is a racist, sexist, homophobic, disablist idiot, who ignores all the qualities I possess and the fact I am the best person for the job and chooses someone else instead.

Well thanks a bunch everyone, you got my hopes up with this anonymity law but ultimately – because that was as fas as it went – I didn’t get the job, so nothing has changed!!! I haven’t had equal opportunities, I feel just as alienated as I did before and nobody has benefitted at all.

Seriously people, think this through. It is pointless…without something that goes further.

@10: How exactly would this work for a 10-person small business, where there simply isn’t a dedicated HR person who can anonymise the CVs before passing them onto another HR person and managers ahead of making any interview decisions?

I’m also concerned about how this would work in practice. If it means that all job applications have to go through an anonymising agency (which would cost time and money), then I’d be against it.

But there’s a far simpler solution: simply allow a job applicant to use an alias when applying for jobs, on the condition that they have to tell the employer their real name when they get the job (which they probably have to do already for tax reasons).

Another idea: if someone finds their name is a hindrance to their career, why not just change their name.

Oh dear, Animal. You might be political but you’re not very clever are you?

“Discrimination may continue to exist at the interview stage.”

Well, what’s the bloody point then!!!

It reduces discrimination at the applicant stage. This means you might get a whole lot more people from ethnic minority backgrounds getting through to the interview stage than would otherwise be the case. I’m guessing you think that’s a good thing, unless you belong to the Frank Field wing of the Labour Party.

@46 That happens. Wonder why so many people of Chinese and Korean origin are called Andy, Ben, Monica and Amy? Their 1st generation immigrant parents thought their actual names would be too hard for the British to pronounce, and that this would prevent them integrating. It is not, from what I know, something the Japanese practice. I find it quite odd, because the hypothetical uncultured white Briton would still have a foreign surname to contend with – and it’s not like racists hate ethnic minority people because their names are a bit hard to pronounce than ‘Tim Jones’ etc

I think comment 47 is somewhat unfair to Frank Field, Denim. You seem to be implying he’s a racist. Is that what you think?

‘But there’s a far simpler solution: simply allow a job applicant to use an alias when applying for jobs, on the condition that they have to tell the employer their real name when they get the job (which they probably have to do already for tax reasons).’

Fine, if your job doesn’t require a CRB check and your employer isn’t worried that they might be prosecuted for accidentally hiring illegal immigrants.

I’d be interested in seeing if MPs would stand anonymously and let people vote on their policies rather than personality – especially now that ‘reputation’ is less an asset than an albatross around their necks.

48 It isn’t odd at all, Japanese names are very easy to pronounce for English speakers, easier even than a lot of funky British names.

@ 41

Blue Jeans –

@38 The reason it is “the fuck” there is because every once in a while the employer should compile these forms, gather the data on them and use them to see the differences between the ethnicities/genders/disabilities of those applying, those who get interviewed, and those who get the jobs. That way, if you have 98% of brown people applying, but interviewees are 60% white, you’ve probably got a discrimination problem.

Hmmm – then why are we all having this discussion?

IF you are correct then there is no reason whatsoever to even think about Mrs Featherstones idea. You just collate all that information you espouse and make sure that whitey doesn’t discriminate against anyone – I know, let’s call it Positive Discrimination, that’ll work.

@51 I was referring to the fact that Chinese/Korean parents pick English names for their kids when over here as being odd – you are right, Japanese names are easy to pronounce, and certainly easier than Chinese names. It might have something to do with national identity and the strength of identification with the original culture that might differ between Japanese British and Chinese/Korean British. You don’t get many South Asians naming their kids with English names to make it easier on the natives

@49 What I meant was that any attempt to balance out ethnic inequality by use of legislation is likely to result in accusations of reverse racism from the likes of the BNP, but also will be condemned by those who are very conservative on immigration, such as Field, who will say that such measures play into the hands of the BNP.

@52 – because you need to ensure that the information on those sheets (name, age, gender, ethnicity, disability) is not seen by those who should be selecting interviewees purely on the basis of ability as demonstrated by their work history, education and/or supporting statement. That is one level of it – at selection. That is to stop the knee-jerk racism of Mr Smith not wanting to recruit any Mr Singhs to the company.

The data that can be collated (ie. all of the above minus names, as you can’t really plot those on a graph) is then used to see the overall trends – to see if the company has issues of discrimination at any stage beyond interviewee selection, or if there is an issue with too few ethnic minority people applying. That is another level – an overview. The organisation’s HR officer or whoever compiles a report based on these stats and then whoever is in charge can see if they need to do more to reach out to people of a certain background, i.e. if applicants are 99% white when there are (IIRC) 10% non-white people in the UK, there might be a need to see if the company should place its job ads in ethnic minority specialist media.

Political_Animal: here’s how I think it would help end discrimination:

It would stop the subconscious racism or sexism of someone’s CV being dismissed because of their name.

At an interview you have to judge someone’s merits more closely (more time is usually taken over an interview than evaluating a single application form form) and the person being interviewed has the chance to demonstrate to you why any prejudicial instincts are misplaced.

That’s not a 100% insurance against all discrimination – but it would cut back the amount that takes place. And less discrimination would bring the sorts of benefits you quoted.

I suspect the overall effect would be fairly significant, as the scientific research into instinctive racism is pretty scary, though admittedly what I’ve seen has been largely from the US, e.g. some of the studies talked about in Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink.

Well, there’s no need for personal attacks Denim.

Let me put it another way. There is a factory that makes chocolate bars. They have a problem with rat droppings getting in to the chocolate. How to stop it? They put up a bi barrier by the entrance door and lo and behold there aren’t any rat droppings at the front of the factory and we can produce lots of nice figures showing how things have improved. Unfortunately, it doesn’t do anything about the rats already in the factory. The result…you still have rat shit in your fucking chocolate!!!

The point is, it may do lots of nice things about saying ‘ooh, look at us good people, look at all these fantastic figures showing people from minorities are now getting interviews’ but it doesn’t do a damn thing about ensuring people from a minority get hired, when they are the best person for the job. The effect is meaningless apart from for politicians. The affect on real people is negligible. It does nothing to take the discriminator to task.

You go to an interview to get a job. If you go to an interview, but don’t get the job because you’re from a minority, you won’t turn around and say ‘oh well, at least I got an interview’. It does nothing to tackle discrimination whatsoever.

@48,

Yes, that a good example. I must admit, if someone cares more about clinging to the cultural identity of their parents’ homeland than getting on in life, I have limited sympathy for them (and that sort of person is likely to do less well in life even if anonymised applications are introduced).

@56: The point is, it may do lots of nice things about saying ‘ooh, look at us good people, look at all these fantastic figures showing people from minorities are now getting interviews’ but it doesn’t do a damn thing about ensuring people from a minority get hired, when they are the best person for the job. The effect is meaningless apart from for politicians. The affect on real people is negligible.

I disagree. Most discrimination is unconscious rather than deliberate, and it seems to me quite likely that anonymised applications would reduce this.

#55 Mark, I appreciate the constructive response but I honestly can’t see it having that much effect. I have personal experience of having interviewed and hired 100′s of people many years.

I take in CV’s, I go through them to see the skills/experience they have and then I invite the best for interview. I then interview them to see who comes across best and can fulfill the criteria I need for the particular position I have advertised. Everyone I have hired, has been based on their skills and experience, not their age/sex/race/sexuality or disability. However, there may be people out their who aren’t as liberal as me and may indeed discriminate. The proposal would do absolutely nothing to help anyone from a minority to have an equal chance of getting the job because it does nothing apart from tinker with which CV’s get considered.

Maybe it would be different in large organisations but as someone with many years experience in running small businesses, it waouldn’t do anything to change the outcome and THAT was the whole point of the undertaking, was it not?

#58 I agree, it would reduce discrimination at the APPLICATION stage but not the overall discrimination in the whole recruitment process and would therefore not give equal opportunities.

@54: if applicants are 99% white when there are (IIRC) 10% non-white people in the UK, there might be a need to see if the company should place its job ads in ethnic minority specialist media.

Why the fuck should they have to? If some members of ethnic minorities can’t be bothered to look in mainstream media when seeking employment, that’s their problem not the employers.

I think there’s a deeply patronising and insulting attitude towards some people on the left towrds working class people and members of ethnic minorities — they are seen as being too stupid and apathetic to do anything on their own behalf and have to be encouraged and mollycoddled to do anything.

I assert that for most people this isn’t true — most members of ethnic minorities are perfectly capable, if they’re looking for a job, to look in the right places (e.g. the right newspaper on the right day, etc).

@60,

Insofar as discrimination is unconscious and operated at the pre-interview stage, it would reduce it.

#62 yes, I am agreeing with you! But surely the point about introducing something to reduce discrimination at the pre-interview stage, would be to achieve an end result in seeing less people from a minority being discriminated against when it came to offering the job. If it doesn’t achieve this, there is literally no point to it.

@ 54 -

Then, again, I ask what is the point? As has been said before loudly by some political parties, we have a problem of discrimination in the workplace – even now, so those bits of ink that are collected do precisely nothing to alleviate race, sex, disability, religious discrimination.

In other words, that collated information isn’t doing its job – if it should have a job in the first place.

What about the areas in the UK that are 99.99999999999999999999% white, why are those figure so important there?

Wouldn’t it be a simpler exercise to employ the best person for the job – regardless of colour, gender or abilties?

Whitewashing discrimination with a few lines on a form never did, nor will, ever work.

Political_Animal,

@63 – You accept that it will reduce discrimination at the pre-interview stage. You also (@59) seem to partly accept that it could (‘maybe’) reduce discrimination at the interview in large organisations.

So I have three points:
a) This proposal would reduce (often subconscious) discrimination at the pre-interview stage. Therefore more disadvantaged minorities* will make it through to the interview stage. I would suggest that this in itself increases the probability that that individual will get that job. The increase may be marginal, but I think it is difficult to argue that it is non-existent.

b) If the employer is indeed prejudiced against disadvantaged minorities, then these prejudices have to be confronted face-to-face. Importantly, the employer may also have to provide stronger justification (if taken to employment tribunal) for their decision to reject an applicant, than if they

c) I think you are underestimating the importance of getting an interview. Yes, the end goal is to get the job. But getting interviews has significant benefits for individuals’ self-esteem. Imagine how demoralised you would be if you applied for thirty jobs and got not a single interview.

*ie persons with a relevant protected characteristic

sorry, at the end of b) it should say “than if they simply rejected an applicant for interview”.

Mark, thanks for the response.

a) this sounds like it could all get terribly technical, when all we are trying to achieve is reduce discrimination and promote equality, but could any reduction in sub-conscious discrimination be outnumbered by conscious discrimination? I’m unsure about this concept of unconcious discrimination. If it just means ‘unthinking discrimination’ in that something is so ingrained that one discriminates without even being aware of it, then this is surely institutionalised discrimination and needs bolder steps to tackle it. If one is someone who discriminates and thinks in discriminatory ways, I don’t think introducing anonymity would overrule the discriminaion that came to the fore (albeit, unspoken) at the interview stage.

If there WAS to be an increase in equal opportunities and yet it was only marginal, is it really worth the effort, or is it better to re-think a different approach to this entirely?

b) I agree that discrimination needs to be confronted but I find the idea that we should allow MORE discrimination to occur so that we have a better case, repugnant. I know that it is hard to get a case of discrimination together – particularly if it hasn’t gone past the application stage but there is an equally easy get-out clause at interview, that the applicant ‘didn’t come across well’. Now, you may be able to prove that one applicant has better credentials based on their CV but how can you prove that there was discrimination at the interview?

c) Whilst I understand what you say here, I just can’t agree. I have experienced the mind-numbing vapidity that is being unemployed and have gone through the daily ritual of searching for jobs, applying for relevant ones and most of the time, not getting a reply. The odd time I got an interview, I did indeed feel good, but then getting turned down for it is even worse. What is the difference between applying for 10 jobs and not getting an interview and applying for 10 jobs, getting 10 interviews, but ultimately not getting hired? Nothing – I still haven’t got a job. Would that really make me have more self esteem?

The problem I have with the proposal is not that it is bad, or won’t do any good – I accept anonymity on CV’s is a good idea, in the same way that the introduction of anti-age discrimination policies of stopping employers asking about dates of birth on application forms was a good idea – but that it doesn’t go far enough in tackling discrimination in the recruitment process and indeed, could do more damage to tackling discrimination, by paying lip-service to such initiatives by backing a proposal that would allow a discriminatory employer to wave a piece of paper showing how many minorities got through to interview stage, as though this was some great advance. Meanwhile, those job seekers from minorities that were previously discriminated against at application stage are now discriminated against at interview stage. It therefore achieves virtually nothing.

I go back to the Lynne Featherstone quote. She said it would help equality…

“by providing people with equal opportunities to earn their living, it opens up all sorts of other knock-on benefits in terms of social cohesion and economic efficiency, which we all benefit from”

Again, I assert, this proposal would do nothing of the sort. If she wishes to achieve what she states is the aim, I suggest a more in-depth proposal.

Ensuring people have adequate education and skills would help. A degree in media studies from an ex-poly is unlikely to give somebody the education to run Shell , BP, Rolls Royce , Microsoft, Google , Toyota or be the ambassador to France, Russia or China, Lord Chief Justice, etc. Most international companies want the best people from the best universities.

What business is it of anyone’s if I choose to discriminate based on names? Seriously, this highly engineered obedient society you preach in favour of makes me sick to my stomach.

If this is what ‘liberal’ means these days, I’m scared as hell to think what ‘totalitarian’ has evolved into…

I am opposed to this legislation because of the level of regulation and administration it would impose on businesses, and the additional control that those measuring compliance would have; though I imagine it would not have as much an effect on big businesses and the public sector that are already heavily regulated.

But really, you don’t need any of this stuff to combat racism, you just need free markets: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/06/obama_on_how_ma.html

Flexible and free labour markets punish employers who discriminate for crappy reasons rather than for good reasons because they miss out on decent employees. So long as you ensure that sectors are competitive and don’t allow individual companies to get entrenched, then those that hire the best candidates will tend to rise to the top.

Well – thanks for so many interesting comments. Of course it’s not a panacea – and there is further work to do to make it better and properly functional. However, if when the DWP finishes its survey work and experimental work on seeing what discrimination is out there – if the results come back conclusively demonstrating and confirming that initial finding of ‘significant discrimination’ – then it has to be a good thing for the first sift. As to company size, how exactly an application should be anonymised, etc – all to be worked out.

I think there is a great natural discomfort psychologically to us at the idea of our name being removed – and that goes for applicant and recipient of application. We read a hell of a lot into names – and I guess that is the point. So – my theory – because until the work examining my theory is done it is just a theory – is yet to be proved. But if it is proved – then if we can remove that barrier we must remove it.

Of course interview reveals what is hidden by anonymous application – but interview is a very different process at which personality comes through. And I have to say that having sat on numerous job panels at Haringey Council and the GLA where the questions are weighted and scored and so on – without wishing to wind up the entire human resources world – the candidate people liked or wanted got the job. My observation as someone who scored and weighted religiously – was that it was not an uncommon practise for scores to be made to fit the applicant that was wanted – and sometimes wanted before the interview process even started. So equal ops is a process which was meant to deliver fairness – but which I think often is subsumed by other considerations or ‘feelings’ from the panel. I have been banging this drum about the faux interview process forever!

This simple measure to remove unconscious bias by removing a name at first sift – I believe will make a real difference.

I’d vote for you if I was in Hornsey and Wood Green, Lynne.

What has really rather astonished me in all these discussions of that research and showing how names can indeed lead to discrimination.

We’ve known this for ages. This sort of research has been done several times in the US.

Yes, “black sounding” names get a worse response than “white sounding” ones.

Quite what solution, if any, there is I’m not sure but I’m simply amazed that everyone is treating this as some new revelation. Doesn’t anyone actually bother to read the research literature? If not, why have we got 600,000 civil servants?

Perhaps the ‘new revelation’ is that this is still the case, Tim.

Or are you suggesting we should have just said “ah, job’s a goon ‘un” and stopped checking sometime back in the 19th century?

We’ve been doing this for a few years already and it works pretty smoothly from my own perspective when I’ve been recruiting this way.

Will be interesting to see what the DWP research shows for 2009. A BBC investigation along these lines in 2004 (story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3885213.stm) found some pretty damning evidence – huge reductions in your likelihood of getting to interview if you had an African sounding name, and even more for Muslim sounding names.

#77 – That’s the least scientifc “evidence” since someone worked out the Earth is 7000 years old.

Is there ANY serious, academic, peer-reviewed leterature that demonstrates that there is a significant level of name discrimination in this country?

If not we can safely discount this idea as illiberal, pointless, inefficient, and, most important of all, a slander on the majority of employers in this country.

As a point of information, it is common practice in classical music for players to be auditioned behind a screen so that they are judged purely on the sound they produce. This is a case where anonymising applicants works well. It would be interesting to compare the same group of players auditioned behind the screen and without it – that would give an indication of whether musical employers at least were likely to discriminate.

“it is common practice in classical music for players”

That’s a recent change. After a study which showed that if you did audition them behind a screen then more women got hired….because there was indeed bias, conscius or otherwise, when the people running the audition knew the sex of those auditioning.

We need a good education especially with emphasis we are equal and dispel the myth that a person or group or race, are better or worse than another. A global world now needs a “global” education especially of other peoples and places. A curriculum called global dimensions must be implemented across the board not just for young people (but especially for people in positions of influence and power) as it teaches-
“critically examine their own values and attitudes
appreciate the similarities between peoples everywhere, and learn to value diversity
understand the global context of their local lives
develop skills that will enable them to combat injustice, prejudice and discrimination.”

Since the evil, cruelty and injustice that emanates from prejudice and ignorance is likely from some institutions than something inherent in individuals. Otherwise we have to look at the possibility of prejudice detector or some psychometric tests for people in positions of influence and power, who are making decisions and to elicit or spot their prejudices (if any) and looking at ways to correct this flaw and act appropriately and positively to address it.
Heal the world.

[78] Yes – certainly when it come to medical school;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7888888?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

And in Ireland too;
http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_job_news.asp?id=93138

Even so I do not think we should interfer too much will small businesses – life is already hard enough for them at the moment.
http://www.bdo.uk.com/news/2009/record-business-failures-will-be-seen-this-year-says-bdo-stoy-hayward-report.html

I realise such sentiments might be construed as ideologically impure by some but I’ll bet these critics are not trying to run a small shop on the high street?

@80 Yes indeed things did used to be extremely sexist in the classical music world and probably aren’t good enough now. There are still probably male conductors who would prefer all male orchestras.

As a white hetrosexual male I am of the only group that cannot go to an Employment Tribunal for recompense. Thank you Harriett Harperson.

As a white hetrosexual male I am of the only group that cannot go to an Employment Tribunal for recompense.

No you’re not. If they dismiss you for Union activity and you can prove it then you can get recompense, or if you are bullied out by an abusive manager, or if you are forced out through unwanted sexual advances or depending on your contract any number of things.

However, luckily you probably won’t get forced out of work through racism or sexism or homophobia, so stop complaining. Stop being a victim and show some backbone.

“Stop being a victim and show some backbone.”

Seconded …..alll of you.

You moron I would not get the job in the first place. The H.R. dept needs to tick al the P.C. boxes before they even select for interview, and I reiterate,” I cannot at this stage take anybody to tribunal as a WHITE HETOSEXUAL MALE, fact, law, I am speaking from experience. I am a victim as are 1000′s of others, where do you think the BNP got there votes from.