ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥

The purpose of this step is to outline best practices for conductingÌýequitable and inclusive interviews.

It is important to noteÌýthatÌýStep 4 (Equitably Evaluating Candidates)Ìý²¹²Ô»å Step 5 (Conducting Interviews inclusively)Ìýoverlap in the broader faculty-search process. Members of the hiring committeeÌý²¹²Ô»å other program affiliates who weigh in on faculty-hiring decisionsÌýshould reviewÌýStep 4Ìýwhen assessing candidates after both stages in the interview process.ÌýÌý

In other words, to optimally utilizeÌýthe Environmental Studies Program'sÌýStep-by-Step Guide to Inclusive Faculty Hiring, it will be necessary to pan back and forth betweenÌýStep 4Ìý²¹²Ô»åÌýStep 5. After all,Ìýeach stageÌýin the interview phase of the faculty-search process will require strong skills in inclusive and equitable evaluation.Ìý

Legal and Illegal Interview Questions

Members of the hiring committee mustÌýensure thatÌýinterview questions are legally compliant (see , located inÌýÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ Boulder's Faculty Search Process Manual).

Simply adhering to legal requirements will not, however, result inÌýan inclusive and equitable interview process.

Demonstrating a Commitment to Diversity

Nervous interviewees often encounter the following advice:

"Keep in mind that they [the interviewers]Ìýare not only interviewing you. You are also interviewing them."

This remark is, in fact, immensely true. The interview gives the hiring committee a valuable opportunity to demonstrate the unit's strengths and to ensure that the candidate to whomÌýit ultimately makes a job offer will choose thisÌýposition and not another.Ìý

The interview is an opportunity for the hiring committee to show candidates that it is genuinely committed to faculty diversification. This means that in creatingÌýinterview questions, theÌýhiring committee must demonstrate its literacy onÌýissues of social justice and structural inequity. As Ölzem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo articulate in their essay "'We Are All for Diversity, but...': How Faculty Hiring Committees Reproduce Whiteness and Practical Suggestions for How They Can Change" (seeÌýMust-Read Articles on Faculty Diversification), it is all too easy for hiring committees to fall into the trap of including a single, overlyÌýsimplisticÌý"diversity" question in the interview. Strong candidates, versed inÌýissues of structural inequity, will recognize the performativity—and ultimately the emptiness—of this gesture.

And when used in this way, the "token" diversity questionÌýdoes not enableÌýthe hiring committee to accurately assess candidates' knowledge of and actionÌýrelating to issues of structural inequity.

As Sensoy ²¹²Ô»åÌýDiAngelo demonstrate, the values of inclusivity and equitability can be integrated into interview questions that might not, at first glance, appear to relate to diversity. Hiring authorities should read "'We Are All for Diversity, but...'"Ìý²¹²Ô»å consider how they might implement,Ìýadjust, and build upon the specificÌýinterview questions the authorsÌýrecommend.Ìý

Accessibility ²¹²Ô»åÌýthe Interview

In cultivating an inclusive and equitable interview environment, the hiring committee should consider the following:

• How might the principles of universal design ensure a fair and welcoming interview environment for all candidates?
• How do traditional interview strategies/questions exclude and alienate candidates who identify and/or are profiledÌýas BIPOC?
• How do traditional interview strategies/questions disproportionately benefit candidates with certainÌýcognitiveÌýprofiles—neurologicalÌýattributesÌýthatÌýwhile potentiallyÌýbeneficial,Ìýmay not necessarily translate to a higher aptitude for career success (e.g. people who process information quickly and/or have "encyclopedic memories")?
• How does the traditional interview setting/culture facilitate success forÌýcandidatesÌýwho are members of overrepresented social categories,Ìýwhile excluding candidates who are members of underrepresented social categories?Ìý

Predominantly white spaces in which whiteness is unmarked—treated as normative—mayÌýexcludeÌý²¹²Ô»å/or alienateÌýBIPOC interviewees (for more on marking whiteness and other expressions of structural privilege, see Step 6).

AÌýnoisy environment mayÌýbe exceptionallyÌýdistracting toÌýcandidates with neurological difference.

A committee that makes assumptions about candidates' gender affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. mayÌýexcludeÌý²¹²Ô»å/or alienateÌýinterviewees who identify as LGBTQIA+.

These are just a few examples of the many ways the setting/culture of the interview environment canÌýundermine the evaluationÌýprocess and alienate highlyÌýqualified candidates.

Hiring committees might also consider "blinding"Ìýinterviews conducted on virtual platforms (e.g. turning off the video setting in virtual meeting rooms). This practice can be problematic becauseÌýmembers of the hiring committee may still socially profile candidates based on their voices. If the hiring committee chooses not to categorically refrain from using video duringÌývirtual interviews, committee members should consider making video optional. But, if the committee provides candidates with this choice, it is imperative that evaluation criteria ensure that candidates who choose to participate in video interviews are not given preferential treatment. Ìý

For additionalÌýinformation on conducting equitable and inclusive interviews, please seeÌý,Ìýwhich isÌýlocated in ÃÛÌÇÖ±²¥ Boulder's Faculty Search Process Manual.

For more on the importanceÌýof conducting equitable and inclusive interviews, see theseÌýexternal resources.

Ìý