CAF has been made aware of a Cambridge University “Diverse Recruitment Framework”, which encourages discrimination in favour of “underrepresented groups” in order to create “a more diverse approach to recruitment process”. Among other things, recruiters are told to accept that they “have biases” and to ensure that “more than one [minority] candidate” reaches the final selection stage.
Originally released in 2019, the Framework was developed “as a source of ideas, information and resources” that “complements the University’s Recruitment Guidance” by directly supporting “actions identified though [sic] our Athena Swan award [and] our Race Equality Charter”. All the University’s constituent institutions are encouraged to use this Framework in “embedding the principles of diverse recruitment into all selection phases from constructing the advert, through advertising, shortlisting, and interviewing”. The Framework provides recruiters with advice on how to take a “pro-active and inclusive approach” to each of these stages.
The advised policies range from silly to borderline discriminatory. For example, when writing an advert for a new position, recruiters are told to use “a gender de-coder to identify words that may be off-putting to women”. This proposal comes with a link to the TotalJobs gender de-coder, which can analyse job listings for phrases with “unconscious associations with male stereotypes” and encourage more female applicants by suggesting alternatives.
Somewhat surprisingly for a programme that is meant to combat sexism, the de-coder lists words such as “individual”, “ambitious”, and “confident” as “male-biased”, while the “Top 10 female-biased words” include “child” and “dependant”. Ironically, TotalJobs’ own Job adverts analysis found that so-called “female-biased words” are significantly more common than their “male-biased” counterparts, appearing in 45 percent of adverts, with the “male stereotypes” only managing 32 percent.
Still, these de-coders are nothing new in the world of HR and recruitment. More concerning are the Framework’s recommendations for shortlisting and interviewing. Here, recruiters are told to “accept that you have biases” and consider “how race, gender, age, socioeconomic background, and other characteristics might influence you”.
In fact, Cambridge is so concerned that such pernicious influences might skew their recruitment efforts that all departments are told to “ensure that those taking part in the selection process […] access the online modules on E&D [Equality and Diversity] and Understanding Implicit Bias”. Moreover, recruiters are given something close to quotas for the final stage of the applicant process:
“Research shows that when the final applicant pool has only one minority candidate, they are unlikely to be offered the position: try to ensure that more than one candidate from underrepresented groups is invited to interview stage.”
Here, the Framework comes perilously close to encouraging unlawful discrimination. As the interview is usually the final stage of the recruitment cycle, only candidates from the shortlist are invited to participate. As such, spaces are limited, sometimes to a specific number of candidates, and a requirement to include “more than one candidate” from a particular group could easily lead to an applicant from a different group being excluded based on a protected characteristic, such as race or gender.
A member of a Cambridge Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee, speaking on condition of anonymity, told CAF that when the point of potential illegality was raised in a meeting, participants were merely told “don’t worry about it” because “it’s all been thought through”.
Despite this blasé approach, the Framework has likely managed to stay within the bounds of the law, if only by the skin of its teeth. The words “try to ensure” goes a long way to convey that this is advise, not outright policy. In addition, because this is presented as a selection criterion for the interview stage, and not for the position itself, it is probable that it does not violate any laws, so long as all candidates still meet the minimum criteria for the job.
This last point could be why the Framework also advises that if “the longlist is not diverse, you do not have to appoint someone immediately, consider re-advertising the position to encourage a more diverse shortlist”. This way, recruiters do not have to let an unqualified candidate with the right characteristics onto the shortlist, but can still do their best to avoid hiring a qualified candidate with the wrong characteristics.
On paper, the Framework is adept at stepping right up to the line of positive discrimination without ever crossing it. However, individual members of HR might not be so skilled in navigating this legalistic grey-zone. An anonymous source with experience of a Cambridge’s EDI Committee described how senior members had on several occasions declared outright that “the next person we hire [for this position] will be female” or that “sometimes you want a white [person for the job]. Sometimes you want a black. That’s just how these things are”.
Perhaps more astonishingly, the same member of the Committee has also overheard colleagues from non-underrepresented backgrounds being actively discouraged from applying to certain positions, effectively being told “not to bother because of their race or gender”. If true, such behaviour is almost certainly illegal.
Indeed, testimony from this source indicates that the Cambridge EDI committees and much of the HR staff are committed to going above and beyond the recommendations of this already radical Framework. “I joined the Committee, wanting to see what was actually going on and maybe prevent things from going off the rails”, our source said, adding that “When I got there, I discovered it was already off the rails”.
According to this person, many of the EDI requirements in hiring pass through these committees because people are afraid to speak out. “If you criticise it, you’re just seen as a bad person”, they explained. Our source has even been individually questioned by superiors over comments that were critical of certain aspects of EDI.
Despite the obvious commitment to EDI from much of the HR and recruitment staff at Cambridge, the Framework seems to assume the exact opposite. Advice for the interview phase includes several rounds of reflection on the potential bias of the members of the panel:
“Before the start of the interview, the Chair should encourage the selection panel to reflect on the equality and diversity commitments of the committee, recognising that everyone has their own biases and needs to actively mitigate against these”.
Interviewers are also instructed to “Showcase the organisation’s commitment to equality and diversity” during the interview, and when a preferred candidate has been chosen, the Chair should once again “invite the panel to consider if implicit bias might have impacted the decision”. Add in a round of self-criticism and you have got a proper struggle session going.
Finally, the Framework implores all departments and colleges across the University to monitor “the proportions of diverse applicants who progress from longlists to appointments”. This is presumably part of the Cambridge’s Race Equality: A Plan for Action, which explicitly targets an “Increase in BAME UK applications for academic and research posts to 8% or higher” and “for professional services roles to 30%”.
Once again, neither the Diverse Recruitment Framework nor the Race Equality action plan directly instructs recruiters to favour candidates from “underrepresented groups”. However, the combination of a targeted minimum quota, the instructions to monitor proportions of various groups throughout the selection process, and a clear encouragement to ensure that candidates of certain backgrounds reach the final stage makes it obvious what the real goal is.
Indeed, if the information from our source is correct, it appears that several members of the HR and recruitment teams at Cambridge have understood the mission all too clearly and are taking even more extensive steps to ensure that the right sort of people are being offered a position at one of the country’s most prestigious universities.
We strongly urge the University of Cambridge to reconsider the recommendations of this framework. Even if they are technically legal, they violate the spirit of merit and equality of opportunity which should underlie the recruitment efforts of any self-respecting institution.