Skip to main content

Why Your ‘Objective’ Screening Rubric Produced Biased Results

Ijeoma Oluo — in her 2020 bookMediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America — wrote that she and her racial-justice colleagues often utter the words “works according to design” in response to actions or decisions that so obviously benefit white men at the expense of people of color. “Although the phrase may seem alarmingly cold-hearted,” she wrote, “it is our way of reminding ourselves that the greatest evil we face is not ignorant individuals, but our ignorant systems.”

What that means in leadership searches is that committee members often rely on narrow visions and demonstrations of leadership to assess candidates. Candidates who do not look or sound like the leaders we have come to expect end up being evaluated less favorably. White male candidates score well against the evaluation criteria because they act in accordance with the visual and auditory expectations that come to mind when we think about the majority of higher-education leaders we have seen for as long as we can remember.

So, what is the solution? Are we doomed to homogenous leadership teams until the end of time? Of course not, but achieving different results will take more than good intentions. It will require some different goals, including a commitment to reimagining what a campus leader looks and sounds like.