Office of
Affirmative
Action &
Equal
Opportunity

474 Oregon Hall, 5221 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5221 • (541) 346-3123

A.    Where fewer women or people of color are employed in a job group than would be expected based on availability, we have a specific obligation as a federal contractor to engage in a good faith effort to make progress toward correcting that under-representation.  That begins with a thoughtful, targeted outreach and recruitment effort every time we have the opportunity to make a hire into the job group.

B.            Hiring authorities need to develop broad and appropriately targeted recruitment strategies designed to attract a broad and diverse pool that includes women and people of color.

C.           Examples of outreach and recruitment resources include:  relevant professional organizations; minority or women’s special interest groups or caucuses within professional organizations; relevant professional journals; The Chronicle of Higher Education; general higher ed minority recruiting organizations, publications or websites; and contact with colleagues at other organizations who might know of promising candidates.  Our first priority is to engage in broad and targeted outreach and recruitment; our second priority is to document those efforts.

D.           If every pool is as diverse as reasonably might be expected based on availability, we can expect eventually to see a workforce that roughly reflects the availability of women and minorities among those with appropriate qualifications within the reasonable recruitment area.

A.          General – Once a broad and targeted outreach and recruitment effort has been implemented and the search committee turns to selecting the best qualified candidate from among the applicants, the focus shifts from affirmative action to equal opportunity, although there are points at which we can act affirmatively within the parameters of the law, as addressed below.

1.            As applications are received, the hiring department should be sending out letters acknowledging receipt of applications, enclosing an Applicant Data Request Card and advising applicants of the campus safety and security report in compliance with the Jeanne Clery Act.  It is important that Applicant Data Request Cards go out early so we have a basis to assess the diversity of the applicant pool.

2.            First opportunity to act affirmatively:  Before beginning to review the applications, search committees for faculty, research, and OA positions are required to contact the Office of Affirmative Action regarding the diversity of the applicant pool.  If the pool is not as diverse as we might expect based on availability, the committee and/or hiring authority should consider whether additional outreach and recruitment efforts might result in a more diverse pool.

B.            Evaluation of Written Application Materials

1.            Prior to review of written application materials, the search committee needs to have a thoughtful and thorough discussion about selection criteria – what kinds of training, experience, accomplishments or other job-related attributes are relevant to success in the position. 

2.          In defining the selection criteria, the search committee needs to exercise care to ensure that:

a.             The criteria are grounded in the position as posted – they are either addressed in or reasonably can be inferred from the job announcement.

b.            The criteria are defined specifically enough to be useful in guiding the selection decision but broadly enough to avoid eliminating otherwise strong candidates who, despite having less traditional background and experience, have the skills and experience necessary to be successful in the position and would bring a different approach or perspective that would add value to the position.

c.            The criteria have been critically reviewed in an effort to ensure that they are free from non-job-related bias that might inadvertently eliminate otherwise qualified protected group candidates from ongoing consideration.

3.     Candidates who meet the stated minimum qualification move on to review of preferred qualifications; candidates who do not meet minimum qualifications don’t move on UNLESS the position is redefined and re-advertised. 

C.           Short List – selecting candidates for initial interview

1.            Second point at which we may have the opportunity to act affirmatively:  If the search committee is challenged in deciding how many candidates to include in the initial interview phase because of the number of strong and viable candidates, they are encouraged to contact the Office of Affirmative Action to see if where they draw the line in terms of candidates for initial interview would make a difference in maintaining diversity in the applicant pool.  If the very top group does not include gender, race or ethnic diversity but expanding that group would maintain the opportunity for a diverse hire, the committee is encouraged to consider extending the initial interview list so long as that does not result in interviewing candidates the search committee has determined are not viable.

2.            There is no bright line minimum or maximum number of candidates for initial interview.  The search committee may interview as many candidates as it deems necessary.  The search committee needs to have a job-related explanation supporting its decision as to candidates selected for interview and those eliminated from further consideration.

D.           Finalists – candidates invited for on-campus interviews.

1.            There is no bright line minimum or maximum number of final interviews allowable under university policy.  The search committee needs to be able to justify selections on the basis of job-related criteria.

2.            If the search committee is limited in the number of candidates it has been asked to identify for on-campus interviews and is challenged in identifying those to invite from among a greater number of substantially equally qualified candidates, there are three options:

a.             Invite all substantially equally qualified candidates to campus.

b.            Critically re-evaluate all substantially equally qualified candidates to determine whether the “tie” can be resolved on the basis of job-related criteria.

c.            If either women or people of color are under-represented in the job group and one of the substantially equally qualified candidates would contribute to helping to correct that under-representation, it would be consistent with our good faith obligation as a federal contractor to break the tie based on race or gender.

E.            Interviews

1.            As with all steps in the selection process, consistency and fairness are critical. 

a.             Interview questions must be clearly job-related and designed to help the search committee determine which candidates have the training, experience, skills and ability to best perform the essential functions of the job. 

b.            Each campus interview should include the same opportunities – meetings with constituency groups, administrators, etc. 

c.            Care must be taken to gather the same job-related information for each candidate through consistency in questions posed by the search committee and input received from other constituency groups involved in the on-campus interview process.

2.            To ensure equity in the selection process, avoid:

a.             Asking additional questions of one candidate that are not asked of others except where necessary to obtain or clarify an answer to a question asked of all candidates or to clarify information in a candidate's application materials.

b.            Asking questions that elicit personal information rather than job-related information.  Some non-job-related information, such as number and age of children, can lead to impermissible discrimination.  The less non-job-related information you have, the less that could possibly enter into, or be perceived as entering into, a selection decision. 

3.            We have an obligation under the law to provide reasonable accommodation to both applicants and employees with disabilities.  An applicant with a disability may require accommodation in order to participate in the selection process.  E.g., someone with a mobility impairment will require that interviews be conducted in locations that are physically accessible.

a.             Our duty to accommodate applies only to KNOWN disabilities.  However, we are precluded under the ADA from making pre-employment inquiries that reasonably are intended to elicit disability-related information.

b.            In order to meet our accommodation obligation without violating the ADA, when inviting candidates it is useful to ask a carefully worded question that gives candidates the opportunity to identify any special needs without asking about a disability.  E.g.  “Are there any special considerations of which we should be aware in planning your visit to Eugene?”

F.           References

1.              Checking references is a critically important part of the selection process.  As with all other steps in the selection process, consistency and fairness are paramount.  Reference questions must be clearly job-related and directly relevant to a candidate’s potential success in the position.   The search committee or hiring authority should take care to be gathering the same body of information for each candidate.

a.      The search committee/hiring authority is not limited to contacting those references identified by the candidate.  However, to ensure respect for candidates in the selection process, it is a professional courtesy to let candidates know if additional references are being contacted.

b.            Where additional references are contacted, the search committee or hiring authority should have a clear and job-related rationale for contacting those references.

G.           Final Selection Decision

1.            The guidelines implementing our affirmative action related obligations are very specific in requiring that decisions be based on merit, rather than on gender or race.  Therefore, under no circumstances should a clearly less qualified candidate be selected or elevated in the selection process over a clearly better qualified candidate.  However, as noted above, please be aware that how the selection criteria are defined will determine who emerges as best qualified and ensure that selection criteria do not unfairly disadvantage applicants from protected groups.

2.            In the case of two or more substantially equally qualified final candidates, UO policy 3.140 applies to officer of instruction, research and administration hires.  It reads in relevant part that “If there are minorities or women included on this list [of finalists], then the best qualified of them shall be chosen, unless it is determined that some other candidate is demonstrably better qualified for the position or that no candidate is adequately qualified.  The purpose of this procedure is to guard against the use of a closely divided departmental judgment, or one based on a genuinely small difference perceived among candidates, in order to choose a white man over a woman or minority applicant.”