State of the Art 

Current research on implicit cognitive and structural bias identifies a need to invest time early in the hiring process (ideally before the position is posted, but at least before applications are reviewed) for developing well-defined evaluation criteria. The goal is for the search committee to reach agreement about what is needed for candidates to meet each qualification, and how/when candidates will be evaluated on those qualifications. Performing this task before advertising the position lets us “test” whether the qualifications are likely to produce the intended results, and to refine them if needed. Being rigorously accountable to the criteria at all remaining stages of the search can mitigate unintended cognitive bias.

To some, this process may seem frustrating and unnecessary—especially if you have not used it before— but faculty, administrators, and staff report that it saves time, prevents confusion, and mitigates unintentional bias throughout the selection process. The process is most successful when developed through a committee discussion of each evaluation criterion; this approach captures the breadth of committee members' perspectives while ensuring that everyone understands the qualifications in the same way before evaluating applications. 

Screening and Evaluation Criteria Components

The evaluation criteria submitted with the requisition must include the following components, except for Preferred Qualifications, which are optional based on the position announcement. 

Required / Minimum Qualifications: All required qualifications must be met for a candidate to be hired. Therefore, required or minimum qualifications should be used to screen applicants. These qualifications should include only those absolutely necessary for the work of the position being hired. 

Preferred Qualifications: Preferred qualifications are the additional characteristics that the ideal candidate would bring to the position that would predict even better performance on the job. Although preferred qualifications can be used to screen applicants if there are many applications, they should ideally be used to inform the remaining evaluation criteria. 

Evaluation Criteria: These criteria are in addition to the minimum and preferred qualifications and should represent the process by which the DSC will evaluate candidates as they progress to the semi-finalist, finalist, and final recommendation phases. 

Relationship to Job: To broaden our thoughts about how someone might meet a given criterion, we first determine what each qualification allows the appointee to do in the position. Which position duties require it? Why is it needed, how is it used in the job, and what would be difficult or impossible without it? Does this qualification suggest a detailed set of critical position skills that are not otherwise articulated? If so, what specific skills do we expect that meeting this qualification will predict? Is this criterion actually a proxy for a different skill/qualification?

Evidence: How will the candidate demonstrate their ability or potential in relation to each criterion? What is the range of different experiences, accomplishments, or learning that we believe will meet this qualification; “how will we know it when we see it?” If you have a degree requirement that includes “other relevant disciplines,” what are those disciplines? Once the initial range of criteria is captured, consider who we might miss if we limit ourselves to interpreting it only in one way. Based on how the skill is used on the job, are there other ways to meet the criterion that we may have overlooked or not considered? Ask “how else could it be met” at least five times before continuing.

When to Assess: At what stage will we assess this qualification? If it will be assessed at more than one stage, what are we looking for at each stage? When will we eliminate candidates for not meeting the specification?

Priority: How important is this criterion compared to others? Even for required qualifications, going beyond just “meeting” the requirements to bring additional strength in one area may be more valuable than bringing additional strength in another area. Identifying the relative priority or importance should be completed after all other information has been developed for all criteria. 

Complying with Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) Regulations on Automated Decision-Systems (ADS) and Artificial Intelligence in Employment Decisions

The Department of Civil Rights implemented new regulations on Automated Decision-Systems (ADS).  These new regulations impose strict compliance obligations on employers regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in hiring, promotions, evaluations, and other employment decisions. 

The regulations clarify that the existing anti-discriminatory obligations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) apply to the use of ADS, which includes AI, machine learning, and other automated decision tools. Specifically, Employers may not use ADS or related selection criteria that may discriminate against applications or employees based on any protected characteristics under FEHA. Use of online application technology that filters, ranks, or screens candidates must not disproportionately exclude protected groups. ADS that measure skills, reaction time, dexterity, or other abilities may disadvantage applicants; therefore, reasonable accommodation may need to be provided.

Based on these new regulations, we are reinforcing that the California State University does not use automated decision systems or artificial intelligence tools in making hiring or selection decisions. All applicant evaluations and employment decisions are to be made by human reviewers, using structured candidate responses and job-related criteria to ensure fairness, consistency, and compliance with FEHA.

ChatGPT may not be used to evaluate candidate materials. Uploading resumes or CVs or asking AI to rank or categorize applicants constitutes automated decision-making and violates the FEHA regulations. Committees must use human scoring and review methods, such as structured evaluation forms and standardized rubrics.

High-Impact Practices

In considering the qualifications of candidates and in the interest of meeting the goal of building a diverse and inclusive community, search committees should be mindful of the following high-impact practices:

• Examine applications from students and graduates of programs with a track record of producing candidates from underrepresented groups. It may also be necessary to carefully consider candidates who hold degrees from institutions that may not be traditionally top-rated in the field, since they may have been historically more successful in attracting the best and brightest graduate students from underrepresented groups.
• In defining what constitutes “best,” consider what a candidate could bring to the department/program, its curriculum, the college, and the university as a whole in a wide variety of ways, including diversity.
• If the position has been approved because a department/program faculty member has recently retired or left, the search committee should not be hiring to “replace” this person. Instead, the committee should view this as an opportunity to seriously consider how the new faculty member can realize multiple missions, including meeting the curricular interests of current students.
• Resist the impulse to label one or more of the candidates as the “most promising,” as this may make it difficult for other candidates to be fully considered.
• Avoid assumptions that a woman or a member of a particular ethnic group would not feel welcome in the community or could not relate well to others of different groups. These types of assumptions are damaging and will work against diversity efforts. Other assumptions to avoid include the candidate’s willingness to move, stay long-term, partner/spouse’s willingness, etc. Search committees should let candidates decide these issues for themselves. Unless a candidate offers other reasons, the committee should operate with the understanding that professional interests motivate the application.
• Continually examine whether judgments on a person’s character, types of experiences, or accomplishments are being affected by subjective factors, stereotypes, or other biases and assumptions.
• Refrain from evaluating candidates based on the criteria of “good fit.” Candidate “fit” into the department/program and the community generally leads to finding a person who will blend in easily with the existing structures and who will not alter dramatically the status quo. Women in non-traditional fields, people of color, and most particularly, people of color who come from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds than the majority may be presumed not to “fit” as well into the professoriate as white candidates. Beware of these sorts of presumptions and make every effort to show candidates that they WILL fit, and then let them decide for themselves whether or not that is true.
• Beware of the trap of measuring everything against a restrictive standard. Candidates, for example, who earned their degrees later in life or from historically Black institutions, candidates who worked part-time when their children were young, or those whose experience is off the beaten path, may be excellent candidates who could bring rich experience and diverse backgrounds to the campus.
• The initial evaluation of candidates should be designed to INCLUDE candidates. Screening with the primary purpose of narrowing the pool may result in overlooking excellent candidates.
• Search committee members should review all candidate files thoroughly before offering opinions. Some candidates from underrepresented groups may not appear as strong on paper as they are in person. Evidence suggests that such scholars face a variety of greater challenges than their majority counterparts. Therefore, whenever possible, search committees should keep qualified potential candidates in the pool throughout the interview process. The committee should strive for diversity in the pool of interview candidates, since an interview often reveals qualities not easily visible in an application.

The search committee should follow these additional high-impact practices when evaluating candidates.

• Determine, prioritize, and document search criteria based on position duties. Using a standard form will keep committee members focused on the agreed-upon criteria and provide documentation of the process.
• Discuss the range of evidence that will be considered as relevant to each criterion.
• Develop a mechanism for evaluating applications that includes recording why the applicant was or was not selected. Search committees will need to justify their final recommendations based on the position announcement. Such information will be required for visa purposes if the search leads to an appointment of someone without long-term authorization to work in the U.S.
• Notice that different criteria may produce different top candidates. Be sure to consider all criteria that are pertinent to the department’s/program’s goals. Discuss the relative weight of the different criteria and the likelihood that no or few candidates will rate highly on all of them.
• Identify essential or threshold qualifications without which a candidate will not be selected, no matter how impressive in other areas, then rank other skills or competencies in order of importance.
• Consider including criteria not directly related to the specific discipline if they are nonetheless important to the ability to succeed in the job in the department or program, such as an unusual combination of skills/perspectives.
• Ensure that the criteria for evaluation of candidates do not preclude people with non-traditional career patterns (e.g., a candidate who worked at a national research laboratory, individuals who have taken family leave, a first-generation scholar who began their career at an institution that was not research-intensive, or individuals with disabilities whose careers have been interrupted).
• Consider highly successful people with transferable skill sets.
• Ensure an equitable search by treating all candidates in the same manner. This includes asking the same questions under the same conditions and evaluating candidates using consistent criteria.

Interviewing

In interviewing both semi-finalists and finalists, it is crucial that all candidates be treated in the same manner. The search committee must use the same format (e.g., phone, video, conference) to interview all candidates from the longlist, including internal candidates. Likewise, the same questions should be asked of all candidates, preferably in the same order and by the same interviewer; tailored questions specific to each candidate’s area of expertise and experience should also be framed similarly. Search committees should also use a common evaluation rubric for the questions asked of each candidate, in addition to notes regarding the substance of candidates’ responses.

The following are examples of acceptable and unacceptable inquiries for candidates. Many of these inquiries will not typically arise during a normal faculty position interview; the guidelines below apply in informal portions of the interaction with candidates as well. If the committee has any doubts about areas of inquiry, it is strongly encouraged to consult with HRIE. It is important to note that questions that seek to determine a candidate’s work eligibility should only be asked by the Dean or HRIE.

• Age: It is acceptable, but not typical, to determine whether candidates meet any relevant age requirements of the position, but not for other purposes. Committees cannot require that an applicant provide proof of age before hiring. Committees cannot ask questions that may tend to identify applicants over 40 years of age.
• Birthplace and Citizenship: It is acceptable to determine whether candidates are currently authorized to work in the U.S., but not to inquire about their birthplace and citizenship.
• Conviction, arrest, and court records: It is acceptable, but not typical, to ask about actual convictions (not arrests) that reasonably relate to the applicant’s fitness to perform the particular job. It is not acceptable to ask about arrests, court records, or convictions if they are not substantially related to the functions and responsibilities of the particular job.
• Disabilities: It is acceptable to ask questions about the applicant’s ability to perform job-related functions (work eligibility), so long as the questions are not phrased in terms that seek to elicit information as to whether the candidate has any disability. It is acceptable to ask an applicant to inform the employer of any reasonable accommodation needed to take a pre-offer examination, interview, or job demonstration. It is acceptable, but not typical, to ask, for example: “How many days were you absent from work last year (without asking the reason for the absence)?” “This job requires an employee to prepare written reports containing detailed analysis, often within tight timeframes. Can you perform this function with reasonable accommodation?” It is acceptable, but not typical, to ask an applicant to demonstrate physical abilities if such activities are essential job functions. Conversely, interviewers cannot ask “Are you disabled?” or other questions that would tend to reveal disabilities, the extent of any disability or health conditions that do not relate to fitness to perform the job. Unacceptable questions include: “Do you ever get ill from stress?” “Have you ever been unable to cope with work-related stress?” “How much alcohol do you drink?” “How many days were you sick last year?” “What medications are you taking?” “Have you ever received counseling or medical treatment for mental illness or depression?” Also, interviewers cannot ask questions about prior job-related injuries or past worker’s compensation claims.
• Education: It is acceptable to ask about the applicant’s vocational or professional education, as well as any schools attended.
• Marital status, family status, and sexual orientation: It is acceptable to ask whether the applicant can meet specific work schedules. It is not acceptable to ask about the applicant’s marital status, the existence or number of children, identity of spouse, domestic partner, family or children, or sexual identity or orientation.
• Names: If the applicant worked under other names, it is acceptable to ask for those names in order to check work and educational records.
• Photographs: photographs can only be required after hiring.
• Race, ethnicity, or physical characteristics: interviewers may not inquire regarding applicant’s race, skin color, eye color, hair color, or otherwise about applicant’s physical characteristics, such as height or weight unless these are directly relevant to the essential functions of the job.
• Religion: It is not acceptable to ask about the applicant’s religious denominations or affiliation, religious leader, or observed customs or religious holidays.
• Residence and nationality: It is acceptable to ask about where the applicant currently resides and the length of that residency, but inquiries about the national origin/nationality of an applicant or applicant’s spouse or relatives are not permissible. It is not acceptable to ask if the applicant rents or owns their home. It is acceptable to ask, “Are you currently authorized to work in the United States?”
• Sex or gender: it is not acceptable to inquire regarding gender of an applicant, and gender cannot be used as an indication of whether the applicant will be “satisfied” with the position, whether the applicant will remain in the position for any length of time, or whether the applicant is more or less likely to take/request leave(s) of absence (e.g., pregnancy or family medical leave).
• Stereotypical language: search committee members should be aware of the language used and the messages word choices can convey. Stereotypical language can be illegal and/or offensive to many candidates and should be avoided.
• Work experience or military service: It is acceptable to ask about an applicant’s work experience, including the names and addresses of prior employers, dates of employment, and reasons for leaving. It is acceptable to ask about the type of military discharge.

Interviews and Process for Finalists

• Develop interview questions and feedback form(s) for department faculty and students
• Reference calls require a minimum of two DSC members per call
• Take notes during the reference call to share with the rest of the DSC; upload these notes to the CHRS Recruiting system
• The DSC makes a recommendation to the Dean of acceptable finalists with a narrative of the finalists’ strengths and weaknesses in a narrative. Ranking is permissible but not mandatory. Input must be solicited and considered by the DSC from department tenure-track faculty before making the recommendation.
• DSC and Department Chair may suggest terms of the offer to the Dean
• After clearing the terms of the offer with the Provost, Dean makes a verbal offer