Considering the Culture of Power in the Interview Process – Attire

Previously I wrote about how systems of power are perpetuated through writing (and our assessment of writing based on our understanding of what is “proper”). It’s hard for me to think about power in higher education without reflecting on the interview process. The Placement Exchange is going on as I write in Orlando, and soon after schools will bring candidates to their campuses for the next step in the interview and hiring process. For many of us, this is an annual ritual. We have recruitment and selection down to a science. So I’m going to take a few posts to consider recruitment routines and processes.

To start, below are five aspects of power Lisa Delpit outlines in her book, Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom (p.24).

1. Issues of power are enacted in classrooms. For the purpose of this post, we’ll expand classrooms to mean educational settings, and include interviews for graduate assistantships and professional positions.
2. There are codes or rules for participating in power; that is, there is a “culture of power.”
3. The rules of the culture of power are a reflection of the rules of the culture of those who have power.
4. If you are not already a participant in the culture of power, being told explicitly the rules of that culture makes acquiring power easier.
5. Those with power are frequently least aware of – or least willing to acknowledge – its existence. Those with less power are often most aware of its existence.

There have been many conversations about interview attire on #sachat and, I’m confident, in other venues. The opposing viewpoints seem to be: 1) “Professional” attire is based on privilege. Interview clothes are expensive, and there may be people who are penalized because they can’t afford to meet expectations or choose not to for a variety of reasons (gender expression, culture, ability, etc.). 2) “Professional” attire is an expectation. If we don’t clearly communicate this to students and new professionals, we are doing them a disservice and may ultimately impede their career.

I agree with both perspectives, and I don’t think they necessarily come from opposite sides of the spectrum. Both viewpoints represent people who care about student affairs as a profession, and the individuals who aspire to work in the field. For me, the difference is context. When I’m talking with students who are preparing for their search processes, I reflect on Delpit’s fourth aspect of power. I can explain the system to the student, let her know I may not agree with it, but share that she may be judged by others based on her appearance. I can encourage him to consider interview attire as a way we separate people who share our culture and expectations from those who don’t, to think about whether or not he thinks it’s a valid measure of a person’s ability to be successful, and to revisit these ideas down the road when he is in the position to make hiring recommendations. If the people excluded from the culture of power never get hired for the positions, the status quo can never really change. We have to work to help students and professionals navigate these systems, without convincing them to accept the system and continue the cycle.

Around colleagues, I think about aspect #5. Perhaps they haven’t thought of attire as a function of privilege. By having these conversations we can disrupt the “normal routine” and spark some reflection and critical thinking about our processes. One thing I appreciate about our community is we have conversations like the one on #sachat. But reducing discussions to a simple issue of money brings about solutions like going to thrift shops, looking for deals, borrowing clothes from colleagues, etc. It ignores issues of comfort and authenticity, of gender expression, of the value of different cultures and how these cultures are represented by the clothes we choose. It overlooks the problem of discounting someone, not based on their skills and dispositions, but based on how they look.

Telling candidates “The system is biased. Your appearance isn’t a reflection of your abilities. Wear whatever you want!” isn’t going to help them succeed in today’s job market. Accepting standards of dress without question as indications a person is “professional”, “committed”, and “serious about the interview process and his/her career”; perpetuates a system of privilege and discrimination. Fortunately, by having intentional conversations with both candidates and employers, we can begin to interrupt the system while still helping those who would be excluded from the culture of power.