:KDWGRZHGR"$85$·V6WDWHPHQWRI&RPPLWPHQW

Hiring managers and selection committees must:

As a leader in the astronomical community, AURA isdeeply committed to the human resources that support
our mission to advance astronomy and related sciences
and is deeply invested in continually developing andimproving its policies and practices for the purpose ofproviding a welcoming and fruitful work environment for
all employees.

ϭ͘Overcome objections to setting diversity as a goal.
Ϯ͘Employ processes to proactively address traditionalbiases that have historically limited opportunities forfemale and other minority candidates.
ϯ͘Utilize Best Practices in recruitment, evaluation, andselection.

%HVW3UDFWLFHVIRU+LULQJD'LYHUVH:RUNIRUFH
ϭ͘ Set improving diversity as a key priority in all hiring andselection.
Ϯ͘Educate all hiring managers and selection committees on
recruitment processes and the impact of unconscious bias.
ϯ͘Engage hiring mangers/committees in conversations
regarding diversity and unconscious bias. Identify strategies
for addressing both.
ϰ͘Ensure that the composition of selection committees isdiverse (experience, discipline, gender, ethnicity, etc.).
ϱ͘Know the internal and/or external workforce demographics
for the position being sought.
ϲ͘Establish specifically job-related criteria at the outsetof the selection process but ensure it is broadly worded
enough to attracted a diverse applicant pool.
ϳ͘Expand the recruitment effort beyond traditional sources
to generate diverse applicant pools. Invite candidates froma variety of diversity partners. Encourage all participants in
the recruitment process to proactively network for referrals
of diverse candidates.
ϴ͘Control unconscious bias when evaluating candidates at
all stages of selection by consistently applying the preestablished criteria.
ϵ͘Validate that short lists reflect the diversity of the applicant
pool and/or the available workforce. Consider adding
additional candidates to improve the diversity of the pool.

AURA believes that a diverse workforce, particularly
one that includes women and individuals fromunderrepresented minority and the disabled groups,
contributes best to the achievement of excellence in bothour organization and the scientific community as a whole.
All AURA staff bear responsibility for developing
and fostering a diverse and inclusive work place.
AURA’s recruiting and hiring practices are designed toattract a broadly diverse pool of candidates including
underrepresented applicants. When a vacancy occurs,
AURA will hire the most qualified person from among
the fully qualified applicants meeting AURA goals
and clearly defined program needs while endeavoring
to develop and maintain a diverse work force wherewomen, underrepresented minority and disabled staff areproportionately represented.

8QFRQVFLRXV%LDV“Even the most well-intentioned person
unwittingly allows unconscious thoughts andfeelings to influence apparently objectivedecisions.”³0DK]DULQ5%DQDML“To evaluate other people more accurately weneed to challenge our implicit hypotheses...
we need to become explicitly aware of them.”³9LUJLQLD9DOLDQϭϬ͘Manage the interview process for consistency to ensure anoptimal climate for the candidate.
ϭϭ͘Gather evaluations from all hiring managers/committee
members and review for appropriateness. If any apparent
impacts of bias are identified then discuss and resolve.
ϭϮ͘Evaluate the recruitment process overall at the end andadjust future efforts accordingly.

2YHUFRPLQJ

www.aura-astronomy.org/about/diversity.asp

8QFRQVFLRXV%LDVDQG'LYHUVLW\Diversity goals help make difference acceptable anddesirable, and reverse patterns of discrimination. We needdiversity in such things as gender, race, discipline, outlook,
life experience and personality to offer the breadth of ideasthat lead to an effective workforce capable of achieving
excellence in astronomical science.

“Seeking diversity means maximizing theorganization’s opportunity to hire the best.”W

hen we are put in the position of evaluatingothers, we like to think that we will handle that
responsibility professionally and objectively—that we will judge people based solely on their credentials
and achievements.
However, each of us brings a lifetime of experiences andcultural histories that create in us certain “schemas” ornon-conscious hypotheses (expectations or stereotypes)that affect our judgments of others. Schemas allow
efficient, yet sometimes inaccurate, processing ofinformation. They are unintentional, automatic andoutside of our awareness. Our schemas can even conflictwith our conscious or “explicit” attitudes. We perceive andtreat people based on the schemas we hold regarding their
physical and social categories.
Unconscious bias results from the schemas that exist in ourunderstanding. Unconscious bias affects us all, regardlessof gender, race, sexual orientation, ability, etc. A significant
limiting factor in our selection and advancement processes
and our desire to achieve a more diverse workforce may
well be our inability to acknowledge the existence andimpact of unconscious biases.
The good news is that our schemas and the biases that
result from them can change based on experience orexposure to new information.

Unconscious bias is an impediment to achieving diversity
goals. Unconscious bias affects the evaluation of CVs
and resumes, job credentials, applications and letters ofrecommendation. If the use of and impact of bias is not
acknowledged and addressed, the processes for selection
and advancement can become flawed, resulting insome candidates being under-estimated and/or unfairly
disadvantaged while others are inadvertently advantaged.
This self-reinforcing cycle can make historical outcomes of
who applies for positions, gets positions and progresses inpositions seem “natural” or expected.
“When we assume “that cultural, racial, ethnic, and genderbiases are simply nonexistent [in] screening and evaluation
processes, there is grave danger that minority and female
candidates will be rejected.”([DPSOHVRI8QFRQVFLRXV%LDVA study of over 300 recommendation letters for medical
faculty hired at a large U.S. medical school in the 1990s
found that letters for female applicants differed systematicallyfrom those for males. Letters written for women were shorter,
seemed to provide “minimal assurance” rather than solid
recommendation, raised more doubts, and portrayed womenas students and teachers while portraying men as researchersand professionals. While such differences were readily
apparent, it is important to note that all letters studied werefor successful candidates only (Trix and Psenka 2002).1
A study of the nonverbal responses of whiteinterviewers to African American and whiteinterviewees showed that white interviewers maintained(1) higher levels of visual contact, reflecting greater
attraction, intimacy, and respect when talking with whites,and (2) higher rates of blinking, indicating greater negative
arousal and tension, when talking with African Americans(Dovidio et al. 1997).2

In a national study, 238 academic psychologists (118male, 120 female) evaluated a résumé randomly
assigned a male or a female name. Both male and female
participants gave the male applicant better evaluations forteaching, research, and service and were more likely to hire
the male than the female applicant (Steinpreis et al. 1999). 3
Another study showed that the preference for males wasgreater when women represented a small proportion of thepool of candidates, as is typical in many academic fields(Heilman 1980).4
A study of postdoctoral fellowships awarded by theMedical Research Council in Sweden found thatwomen candidates needed substantially more publications
to achieve the same rating as men, unless they personallyknew someone on the panel (Wenneras and Wold 1997).5
In a study of scientists in R&D labs, White, U.S.born men received more favorable task assignments
and evaluations whereas most others fell into an averagezone on these aspects of their work. Only U.S.-born
Black women were actually less favorably evaluated andhad less access to the work experiences that are related
to performance. “…Findings suggest that in science andengineering, the relative structural position of U.S.-born
White men provides them with greater access to favorable
work experiences…as well as giving them the benefit ofthe doubt in the evaluation of their work (DiTomaso et.
al, 2007).6
5HIHUHQFHV
1. Trix, F. and Psenka, C. 2003. Exploring the color of glass: Letters ofrecommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society
14:191–220.
2. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B. and Howard, A.
1997. On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes.
Journal of Experimental Psychology 33:510-540.
3. Steinpreis. R.E, Anders. L.A. & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on
the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A
national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41, 7/8, 509-528.
4. Heilman, M. E. 1980. The impact of situational factors on personnel
decisions concerning women: Varying the sex composition of the applicantpool. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 26:386–395.
5. Wenneras, C. and Wold, A. 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review.
Nature 387:341–43.
6. DiTomaso, N., Post, C., Smith, D.R., Farris, G.F., & Cordero, R. (2007).
Effects of structural position on allocation and evaluation decisions forscientists and engineers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 175-207