If you need to hear this, I’ll be among the first to say it: The playing field is still not level for Black and brown talent today.
That’s true no matter what degrees from which prestigious schools these professionals have worked hard to attain. And as we’re already seeing in many top schools’ incoming classes, getting a foot even in this first door toward a successful career just got harder for many young BIPOC folks.
In the first group of incoming classes since affirmative action fell, M.I.T. saw a drastic drop in Black (from 15% to 5%) and Latino (from 16% to 11%) student enrollment. Amherst College and Tufts University saw dips in Black and Latino students; at both schools, white enrollment increased. Harvard recently announced that its incoming share of Black students is down. And the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill — one of two losing plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case — says its BIPOC student enrollment dropped 5%.
Not all top universities are seeing the same trends, though. At Yale, Black and Latino student enrollment remained steady while AAPI student enrollment fell by 6%. A similar thing happened at Duke, where AAPI and white student enrollment shrunk but Black and Latino enrollment stayed consistent.
In other words, there’s not one new reality for underrepresented racial groups in a post-affirmative action landscape. What is true, though, is that one tool we had for attempting equity in higher education is gone. And meanwhile, the same barriers underrepresented folks have been facing are still at play, whether they’re considering an undergraduate degree, pursuing an advanced degree, or making their way in the workforce.
Affirmative action acknowledged the reality that race-neutral college admissions and hiring practices make sense in a race-neutral world — but we do not live in that world.
Hiring systems and application structures often assume that candidates, whether at the collegiate or corporate level, have had equal opportunity and equal access to the things that set candidates apart. We know this simply isn’t the case, and that so many of these assumptions default to the white experience. In a 2023 report on racism in the workplace, Catalyst described this effect as “White Defaults,” referring to the “underlying assumption that what employees should look and sound like, how people should carry themselves and interact with others, and whose skills are worthy and whose are not should follow historical White standards and habits.”
Systems of selection that incorrectly assume an equal playing field while using the white experience as the benchmark continue to drive exclusion, in higher education and in our workplaces. Today, we’ll zero-in on hiring practices specifically, looking at the ways they often keep Black and brown talent from even entering the room. Then, we’ll walk through ways to transform those practices, instilling equity along the way.
Hiring Barriers for Black and Brown Talent: Statistics
- As WeSolv research has shown, the recruitment ladder is broken at the first rung. In our 2024 survey of MBA candidates, 70% of Latino or Hispanic candidates and 63% of Black and AAPI candidates said not getting to the first interview is a major job search challenge, vs. 43% of white candidates. Overall, MBA candidates and graduates of color were 21% more likely to say they hadn’t gotten a first interview compared to white candidates.
- The recruitment ladder is even faultier for women of color. Our 2024 survey showed that of those who do make it to the interview, 28% of women called “interviewing but not getting the offer” a primary job search challenge vs. 18% of men.
- A famous 2003 study found that applicants with white-sounding names are 50% more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with Black-sounding names. Applicants with white names also needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, while it took applicants with Black names about 15 resumes to get the same result. Recent studies and a high-profile lawsuit prove not much has changed.
- 40% of Latino professionals in corporate America say they feel it’s necessary to change aspects of themselves to succeed at work, adding a layer to interviewing that white candidates do not have to consider.
- 15% of Asian Americans say they’ve been turned down for a job due to their racial identity, per 2023 Pew Research numbers.
- A 2022 study found that Black workers are more likely to be penalized for self-promotion than white, Latino, and AAPI workers, as managers were more likely to see the behavior as “disingenuous.” Yet, interviewing requires one to be self-promotional.
It’s clear we’re nowhere near equity yet. So, what can team leaders do?
3 Ways to Transform Hiring Practices to Remove Barriers for Black and Brown Talent
1. Drop your use of “culture fit.”
An emphasis on “culture fit” as a prerequisite for being hired can be a subtle way that Black and brown talent is weeded out, or even a reason they remove themselves from the running.
Think about it: How exactly are you defining your company’s culture? And who came up with this definition? When organizations prioritize “culture fit” using a small number of traits, behaviors, and values they’ve deemed “ideal,” their candidate pool can become just as narrow and easily orient toward only a small set of backgrounds.
Instead of obsessing over “culture fit,” look for “culture add” candidates. This encourages hiring individuals who bring new ideas and diverse perspectives, rather than more of the same.
2. Reframe referrals with the help of your ERGs.
Another way to inadvertently breed homogeneity is by relying on referral systems to fill your candidate pipeline. A 2022 study found that, while Americans across demographics tend to have friend groups most heavily dominated by their same race or ethnicity, this was most true for white Americans. Their friend groups, on average, are 90% white. If you’re struggling to diversify a majority-white team at your organization, asking that team to source from their personal networks may not be your best path forward.
Instead, tap in your ERGs and affinity groups here. Citigroup offers a good example. Their 10 employee affinity groups — including an Asian Heritage, Black Heritage, Hispanic/Latino Heritage, and Multicultural group — all play a role in growing the company’s outreach and expanding its recruitment efforts.
3. Implement skills-based hiring practices.
I know we emphasize this point a lot at WeSolv. But when it comes to removing barriers for Black and brown candidates, switching to a skills-based hiring model is truly the most equitable and fairest path forward, for all.
Consider: Handshake found that skills-based hiring results in 3.5x potential Black technical candidates. And underrepresented candidates want to see skills-based hiring practices from potential employers. Our 2024 survey found that while many MBA candidates are hungry for real, hands-on project opportunities during recruitment — something we offer at WeSolv through Case Challenges — it’s underrepresented candidates who want to see these the most. BIPOC MBA candidates were 14% more likely than white candidates to tell us they want prospective companies to engage them with real project opportunities.
Not only that, but skills-based hiring creates more success for employers, too. A 2024 report found that 94% of employers with a skills-based hiring strategy say it’s more predictive of on-the-job success than resumés. And those employers also saw improved diversity and retention scores and lowered mis-hire and cost-to-hire rates.
Want more guidance for starting a skills-based hiring strategy at your organization? Start with our blog on skills-based hiring mistakes for some common roadblocks to avoid. Then, unlock the advantages of a performance data-driven platform built to improve hiring and DEI outcomes with the WeSolv Case Challenge process.