cnbc.com
Digitize Hiring Assessments: Accessibility Issues and Discrimination Against Disabled Individuals
A report by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) reveals that 83% of employers use digitized hiring assessments, many of which discriminate against disabled people due to poor accessibility; this negatively impacts employment opportunities and exacerbates existing biases.
- How do the responsibilities for ensuring accessible hiring assessments and accommodations distribute between assessment vendors and employers?
- The lack of inclusive design in digitized hiring assessments results in technology-facilitated disability discrimination. This is because these assessments often lack accommodations for visual, auditory, cognitive, and other disabilities, creating barriers to employment for qualified individuals. The CDT recommends human review of assessments and adherence to accessibility guidelines.
- What are the primary accessibility issues within digitized hiring assessments, and how significantly do they impact employment opportunities for disabled individuals?
- A recent report by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) reveals that 83% of employers utilize digitized hiring assessments, many of which are discriminatory towards disabled individuals due to poor accessibility features. This discriminatory practice negatively impacts employment opportunities for disabled people, exacerbating existing biases.
- What are the long-term consequences of failing to address accessibility issues in digitized hiring assessments, and what proactive measures could promote inclusive employment practices?
- The future of equitable hiring practices hinges on proactive inclusive design, mandating the involvement of disabled individuals in all stages of assessment development. This includes ensuring transparent accommodations, using alternative formats like ASL for videos, and removing unnecessary timed elements. Failure to address these issues will continue to exclude qualified candidates.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the negative consequences of digitized hiring assessments on disabled individuals. While this is important, the overwhelmingly negative tone might overshadow the progress made by some organizations in creating more accessible assessments. Headlines and the introductory paragraph immediately establish a problem-oriented narrative, potentially biasing the reader toward a pessimistic view.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, although the repeated emphasis on "disabled workers" and related terminology could be considered slightly loaded. Phrases such as "differently abled people" or "people with disabilities" could provide a more person-first approach. While the overall tone is not overtly negative, the frequent use of terms like "screened out," "perpetuated biases," and "technology-facilitated disability discrimination" contribute to a somewhat negative and accusatory tone.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the negative impacts of digitized hiring assessments on disabled workers but offers limited perspectives on successful implementations or accommodations that mitigate these challenges. While the report mentions some positive aspects, a more balanced view acknowledging successful examples of inclusive design and assessment practices would strengthen the analysis. The lack of detail on how employers are successfully addressing these issues leaves a somewhat incomplete picture.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't explicitly present false dichotomies, but it implicitly frames the issue as a conflict between efficient, digitized hiring processes and the needs of disabled workers. A more nuanced approach might explore ways to reconcile these two needs, rather than presenting them as mutually exclusive.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the inequalities faced by disabled people in the job application process due to inaccessible digitized hiring assessments. By exposing these issues and advocating for inclusive design, the article contributes to reducing inequality and promoting equal opportunities for disabled individuals in the workforce. Specific examples include inaccessible color schemes, lack of ASL options, and overly stimulating elements that disproportionately affect disabled candidates. The article also discusses solutions such as inclusive design principles and the need for transparency and accommodations.