Illegal interview question?

[ZedsDed]

Maybe poor phrasing on my part, but it wasn't an absolute statement. Analogy: if I punch someone, and it hurt them, I am in no position to tell them, "but I didn't punch you that hard." In short, impact matters more than intent, and we should consult the impacted when deciding if something is harmful or not.

As to your latter questions, such policy would probably lower the amount of people that get away with racism and homophobia in this country. To be clear I would not support designed juries.

I appreciate your civil and respectful tone, but I don't think you know what you're getting into by starting a debate with elfe haha.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

.

 

[efle]

Maybe poor phrasing on my part, but it wasn't an absolute statement. Analogy: if I punch someone, and it hurt them, I am in no position to tell them, "but I didn't punch you that hard." In short, impact matters more than intent, and we should consult the impacted when deciding if something is harmful or not.

As to your latter questions, such policy would probably lower the amount of people that get away with racism and homophobia in this country. To be clear I would not support designed juries.

Bad analogy. The real analogy would be if you watched someone trip and fall into another person, knocking them down, and then you were told the person knocked into knows better than you whether it was an intentional tackle.

 

[ZedsDed]

Bad analogy. The real analogy would be if you watched someone trip and fall into another person, knocking them down, and then you were told the person knocked into knows better than you whether it was an intentional tackle.

This is the reason we look for witnesses in a trial to determine if some action was malicious or accidental.

 

[Axes]

Bad analogy. The real analogy would be if you watched someone trip and fall into another person, knocking them down, and then you were told the person knocked into knows better than you whether it was an intentional tackle.

Intent doesn't matter, because we're trying to determine if an action was sexist, not if the intention was sexist. The analogy would be if I watched person A trip and fall into person B, knocking them down, and person B said "ouch!" and then I told person B, "relax, it didn't hurt that much."

 

[Axes]

This is the reason we look for witnesses in a trial to determine if some action was malicious or accidental.

And my point is the reason we have both murder and manslaughter charges. (And I don't at all mean to escalate the tone of this discussion by using those terms.)

 

[bc65]

Am I obligated to seek out a Jewish doctor to shadow regardless of my specialty interests so that an interviewer can be satisfied that I'm prepared if I run into an anti-Semitic patient or coworker?

No, because you religion won't necessarily be apparent to others as a physician, or at an interview. And the question here wasn't about dealing with insults, it was about dealing with lifestyle.

So, for example, if an applicant were Orthodox, it would be reasonable ( although perhaps illegal) for an interviewer to ask if the applicant had discussed the compromises or restrictions that they might be subject to as a student, resident, and attending with an Orthodox physician. Legality aside for the moment, the response that "I discussed this with mentors, and they manage just fine" or "my religion will allow me to work as a physician on the Sabbath to safeguard the health of others " would be a satisfactory response. The answer, "gee, I never thought about that" would not.

EDIT: In the above scenario, perhaps if the interviewer wanted to bring this issue up in a more 'legal' manner, they might ask, "How would you deal with a fellow physician who didn't want to work on Sunday because it's against their religious beliefs to work on their Sabbath". You could then say, "That would be great, because I prefer not to work from sundown Friday to sundown on Saturday, so I would be happy to switch with them. However, in my case, if necessary, I can work on Saturday to care for patients." So, there are ways to bring up these subjects without violating the rules.

 

[efle]

Intent doesn't matter, because we're trying to determine if an action was sexist, not if the intention was sexist. The analogy would be if I watched person A trip and fall into person B, knocking them down, and person B said "ouch!" and then I told person B, "relax, it didn't hurt that much."

And this is where you disagree with Goro and several others' points. The perception of sexism does not mean the action was sexist. Intent does matter, it is what defines the action - same idea as what makes something a hatecrime. Just because the person feels they were beaten for being black doesn't make it so, and an objective panel that does not share the minority status determines whether that was really the motivation, regardless of the victim perception.

 

[Goro]

No one should HAVE to, but don't you think it's good idea for all pre-meds to shadow both male and female doctors? This is partially the original interviewer's thrust....that female doctors may have a different way of doing Medicine than males. Whether you like it or not, there are difference in the genders.

Why should female applicants have to seek out female physicians to shadow (as the interviewer's question implies)? The only examples I've seen here are pretty generic sexist comments/situations that are not at all unique to medicine. Am I obligated to seek out a Jewish doctor to shadow regardless of my specialty interests so that an interview can be satisfied that I'm prepared if I run into an anti-Semitic patient or coworker?

Oh, fer cryin' out loud, Ax, how simple do I have to make this? I don't give a rat's ass about what people were thinking and justifying about in 1965, I'm talking about actions, NOW. There's a difference between oppression and demeaning, and being demeaning and not having enough sense to figure out what a questioner is asking.

But to reiterate, and pay attention: there's a difference between "how would you react in this difficult professional situation?" and "hey baby, nice booty!" The former is professionalism, the latter is lawsuit when coming from a co-worker.

Goro, I respect your contribution to this site. That said, back when these examples were commonplace, many people justified them by saying, "relax, real sexism is not letting your wife out of the house," and before that it was, "relax, real sexism is not letting women own property," and so on. Women used to live in a state of coverture, and that was considered fine, because the people of the time had no reformed future to compare to the oppressive status quo. Just because the situation is better, doesn't mean it's ok, and we can only ever see the flaws if we listen to the people who are facing the problem.

*To be clear, I think the interview question was inappropriate but that it would be unwise to report it, and that the attending in this thread's comment was inappropriate.

 

[Ad2b]

My last comment on this thread:

Can I start my own thread when I get asked how I've prepared for this path given my age?

I HOPE I do get asked this question so I can thoroughly discuss what I do to keep healthy, active, engaged, fit; and how all of that has helped me achieve the grades I have (and hopefully, a fabulous MCAT score).

Seriously. I hope I get asked what could be construed as an EEOC violation to share my life. In fact, I expect to be asked. It's the adcoms' responsibility to ensure that not only will I succeed as a student but moreover, as a practicing physician in the public. And if I don't get in, it won't be because of my age.

And if the OP doesn't get in, I can almost 100% assure her that it's not because she's a female.

 

[nanacomeon]

I dont think that the question Was sexist or inappropriate. She just asked if you're aware of what's going on in medicine. It is important to shadow a woman and a man whether you're a woman or a man because whether we like it or not, sexism at work still happens and it is important to have prospective about it and learn more to thicken your skin.

I come from an environment that doesn't let you wear skirts, tight clothes, shorts, sleeveless shirts. Women there are not allowed to ride a bike and are called all names whenever their voice is too high. We're also seen as less competent and have less brain cells than men.
This is sexism! Sexism is also whn you get paid less and when you're harassed because you're a woman.

asking a question about knowing that sexism is present and how you would deal with it is NOT sexism.

I have never been called hun and would not appreciate it because unless you're my friend and do it just between us, you should be professional at work.

 

[Stagg737]

Intent doesn't matter, because we're trying to determine if an action was sexist, not if the intention was sexist. The analogy would be if I watched person A trip and fall into person B, knocking them down, and person B said "ouch!" and then I told person B, "relax, it didn't hurt that much."

And my point is the reason we have both murder and manslaughter charges. (And I don't at all mean to escalate the tone of this discussion by using those terms.)

Congratulations. You literally just contradicted yourself in under a minute...

 

[NotASerialKiller]

No one should HAVE to, but don't you think it's good idea for all pre-meds to shadow both male and female doctors? This is partially the original interviewer's thrust....that female doctors may have a different way of doing Medicine than males. Whether you like it or not, there are difference in the genders.

I agree with most of this, except that from my perspective if an interviewer asks you if you've ever shadowed a doctor from whatever demographic you belong to, doesn't that mean that you'll do worse in the interview by saying no? I have to think that by asking that question they're hoping that you did, and not having done this will therefore worsen your chances at getting in by making you seem ill-prepared in a way that could never happen to a white male. That's what I meant by saying that they "have" to; if you belong to a potentially disadvantaged group you either shadow someone from that group as expected or lose points. That's why I think an interviewer shouldn't be asking that question, not because I find it fundamentally offensive or horribly sexist.

 

[Axes]

And this is where you disagree with Goro and several others' points. The perception of sexism does not mean the action was sexist. Intent does matter, it is what defines the action - same idea as what makes something a hatecrime. Just because the person feels they were beaten for being black doesn't make it so, and an objective panel that does not share the minority status determines whether that was really the motivation, regardless of the victim perception.

Intent absolutely does not define the action. You hit someone with your car, and "I didn't mean it," is not going to go far in court. Same with if you "accidentally" perjure yourself. Accusations of sexism are considered differently, because it is not socially considered an objective infraction. There's often a response of mistrust, and an undertone-- or, as in this thread, an overtone-- of, "she's just overreacting." It happens with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, because these social dynamics affect minority groups and/or groups with little social and institutional power. That said- we aren't going to convince each other of anything. Agree to disagree.

 

[Stagg737]

Intent absolutely does not define the action. You hit someone with your car, and "I didn't mean it," is not going to go far in court. Same with if you "accidentally" perjure yourself. Accusations of sexism are considered differently, because it is not socially considered an objective infraction. There's often a response of mistrust, and an undertone-- or, as in this thread, an overtone-- of, "she's just overreacting." It happens with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, because these social dynamics affect minority groups and/or groups with little social and institutional power. That said- we aren't going to convince each other of anything. Agree to disagree.

So now there's no difference between manslaughter and murder?

 

[efle]

Intent absolutely does not define the action. You hit someone with your car, and "I didn't mean it," is not going to go far in court. Same with if you "accidentally" perjure yourself. Accusations of sexism are considered differently, because it is not socially considered an objective infraction. There's often a response of mistrust, and an undertone-- or, as in this thread, an overtone-- of, "she's just overreacting." It happens with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, because these social dynamics affect minority groups and/or groups with little social and institutional power. That said- we aren't going to convince each other of anything. Agree to disagree.

Intent does define manslaughter vs murder, hatecrime or not, charges of racism, sexism, etc. There's not really an argument to be had here. Convincing a jury something was or was not motivated a certain way is what determines the success of "it was intentional" and "it was motivated by me being X" charges.

 

[Axes]

Congratulations. You literally just contradicted yourself in under a minute...

The punishment for intentionally running someone over with your car is more severe than the punishment for doing it accidentally.
The punishment for intentionally being sexist is and should be more severe than the corrective action that should be taken when someone does something sexist accidentally.

I didn't contradict myself, it's just a loose comparison.

 

[efle]

The punishment for intentionally running someone over with your car is more severe than the punishment for doing it accidentally.
The punishment for intentionally being sexist is and should be more severe than the corrective action that should be taken when someone does something sexist accidentally.

I didn't contradict myself, it's just a loose comparison.

And in accusations of racism/sexism in hiring or other professional settings, it is punishment vs zero punishment. If someone was not hired, and they fail to show it was because they were black or a woman, there is no partial punishment remaining.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

.

 

[Axes]

And in accusations of racism/sexism in hiring or other professional settings, it is punishment vs zero punishment. If someone was not hired, and they fail to show it was because they were black or a woman, there is no partial punishment remaining.

Efle, we are not going to come to a conclusion here, because you are telling me how things are, and I am telling you how they should be.

Satus quo vs reform.

 

[efle]

Efle, we are not going to come to a conclusion here, because you are telling me how things are, and I am telling you how they should be.

Satus quo vs reform.

Do you really want to see people punished for when their actions are perceived a certain way, even with no such malicious intent?

 

[bc65]

I agree with most of this, except that from my perspective if an interviewer asks you if you've ever shadowed a doctor from whatever demographic you belong to, doesn't that mean that you'll do worse in the interview by saying no? I have to think that by asking that question they're hoping that you did, and not having done this will therefore worsen your chances at getting in by making you seem ill-prepared in a way that could never happen to a white male. That's what I meant by saying that they "have" to; if you belong to a potentially disadvantaged group you either shadow someone from that group as expected or lose points. That's why I think an interviewer shouldn't be asking that question, not because I find it fundamentally offensive or horribly sexist.

I see your point, but I think you're overthinking this. If I were in that situation, I would answer honestly, perhaps saying, " No, I didn't have that opportunity", and / or "I didn't think that in this day and age, that the practice of medicine would be fundamentally different for men and women in medicine, but perhaps I'm a bit naive. Do you think that things are still so different that I should shadow a woman now? I'll try to do that as soon as I can. What sort of things should I be looking for? What should I ask women doctors?" .

Remember, 95% of the time, or more, it's just a conversation. There are not usually trick questions. And if there are, just answer as best you can. Don't overthink it, don't be too sensitive, just try to have a normal conversation. I understand all the anxiety, but I repeat, it's just a conversation.

 

[Axes]

Do you really want to see people punished for when their actions are perceived a certain way, even with no such malicious intent?

Not punished, no. But corrective action/education should be conducted when these things happen. The point, or a point, is that "accidental sexism" is a misnomer. When the person from our analogy trips and falls into another, he is "pushed" by institutional and socialized sexism. Educating and correcting the manifestation of socialized sexism is how we attempt to improve the culture for its victims.

 

[bumblebee611]

Intent does define manslaughter vs murder, hatecrime or not, charges of racism, sexism, etc. There's not really an argument to be had here. Convincing a jury something was or was not motivated a certain way is what determines the success of "it was intentional" and "it was motivated by me being X" charges.

Okay, I can't stand holding my tongue anymore. While OP ludicrously demanded to know whether the interviewer's question was "illegal," and it seems clear the question was not, an act can be illegal, or racist, or sexist, or just plain wrong, without being a crime that requires proof of intent. Yes, to convict someone of murder the factfinder must find intent to kill, and to convict of a hate crime the factfinder must find intent to target individuals on the basis of race (or whatever state statute we're talking about), but there is no rule that says that to conclude that something is racist or sexist requires proof of discriminatory or hateful intent. In fact, the Supreme Court just found that with respect to certain kinds of housing discrimination, discrimination can be proved by a showing of disparate impact free of discriminatory intent. And federal employment law has long permitted a showing of disparate impact discrimination (again, no showing of intent necessary). That doesn't mean it's easy to show disparate impact discrimination, but again, the bottom line is that showing that some act or remark is sexist doesn't mean you have to prove that the actor/speaker is purposefully misogynist.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

.

 

[Stagg737]

Lol what is accidental sexism

Example: I knew a few people down south (men and women) that called girls 'hun' or 'honey' (which is perfect since it was mentioned earlier). It wasn't meant to be condescending or anything, just a local colloquialism. If someone wasn't familiar with it, it could easily be construed as sexist when that was never the intent, and in that culture it isn't sexist. It is possible to accidentally say something improper if one is ignorant of what is considered appropriate.

The punishment for intentionally running someone over with your car is more severe than the punishment for doing it accidentally.
The punishment for intentionally being sexist is and should be more severe than the corrective action that should be taken when someone does something sexist accidentally.

I didn't contradict myself, it's just a loose comparison.

So intent does matter? Because if it doesn't matter, then the bolded above is contradictory to what you're trying to say. If intent does matter, then you contradicted yourself by saying "intent doesn't matter".

After reading multiple posts of yours the only conclusion I can come to is that you're either very good at contradicting yourself, or very bad at stating your points clearly...

 

[smilefromwest]

I don't see this as a problem. It's about diversity, being well-rounded and open minded. For example, I once visited a male OB-GYN but simply because there was no female OB-GYN available which is my preference. Then, after consultation with the male OB, I was not contented. I consulted with a female OB.
I believe such question is only to inquire your thoughts on different cases. For me, to be a doctor, one should be able to see the perspective and approach of a female and male doctor to certain situation, condition and challenges.

 

[ZedsDed]

you don't think basing things on perception and opinions rather than objective evidence is dangerous?

I would pose this question to every humanities Professor at my Alma Mater.

 

[Axes]

you don't think basing things on perception and opinions rather than objective evidence is dangerous?

Sure, but so is doing nothing about socialized sexism.

 

[ZedsDed]

Sure, but so is doing nothing about socialized sexism.

What if this hypothetical individual is just a hateful jerk, and would have the personality of a hateful jerk in any time/place? Not everyone (in fact no one) is a complete product of their environment.

 

[efle]

Honestly Axes has been moving his position so much I can't even keep track of the argument any more. In the end I'll posit that you correct society by fighting intentionally sexist/racist/whateverist acts, not any act that is perceived as such. I don't even know how he would handle something like a woman suing because she thinks she was denied the job for being female. To me, if there is zero evidence that such sexism motivated the choice, end of discussion. To Axes, the action of not hiring the woman is inherently sexist separate from whether the actors held any sexist beliefs...what do you do to p̶u̶n̶i̶s̶h̶ correct the company?

 

[jl lin]

Nice post, and you make some excellent points. However, here's the reality: While many schools will give potential interviewers some brief interview training and some do and don't guidelines for questions, in practice your interviewer is a staff member or a community volunteer who is doing interviews out of the goodness of their heart or because they were dragged out of their busy day at the last minute to fill in. From my point of view, and I suspect from the point of view of most schools and businesses, if you can't have a pleasant conversation with an interviewer, who is presumable well-intentioned and vetted by the school, without having to file a complaint about it, then you're probably not going to be able to walk into an exam room and relate well to patients either. Sure, there are certainly questions that cross the line, but I have yet to see one that really irks me, despite having read many of these "is this question legal" posts.

So sure, if a question is blatantly sexist or racist ( women don't belong in medicine; so you really think that your ethnic group is capable of doing the work) then complain. But if the question might be innocent, then take it that way. If you were really offended, but you're not sure if the question crosses the line, then wait until after your decision was made, or write in anonymously to the admissions office, indicate the question you were asked, and state that you were offended. I can assure you that either way, the school doesn't want to alienate potential students.

As a physician, you will have to walk into a room, greet a patient, and establish a relationship within a minute or so, because a minute later you might be injecting them, cutting them, undressing them, or groping up inside them. Some of these patients might be drunk, high, rude, racist, sexist, or criminals, but you'll still have to take care of them. So, if a well meaning interview question throws you into a tizzy, some of us might conclude that you may not have the temperament to be a physician.

Vetted means to teach them basic understanding of where "not to go"--as in a brief lesson to re: EEOC issues. It's not that hard.

I don't care; b/c I would find a way to bring it back around. But these kinds of questions re: race, gender, sexuality, religion, and the like are completely unnecessary and could potentially put a school in a bad place.

Trust me, I won't lose sleep over it; but I know by interviewing people in the healthcare work world that you just stay focused on the position at hand. Seriously, this is not hard. It's actually a bit of a deal in the work world, and HR tries to clarify these things for those that will interact/interview.

Look, as an example: I mean in healthcare you have to sit through a lot of stuff re: HIPAA and the increased monetary amounts for violations--everything from speaking, reading hardcopy, digital, phone, and anything effecting everything from what's inside the cloud to what is outside the cloud. You have to instruct your staff and even volunteers re: HIPAA, no exceptions.

So why should schools interviewing students should be less vigilant? And since the government will hold them by the same standards, in fact the still are expected to be equally vigilant over HIPAA as well as EEOC violations or potential violations. Frankly it's really unwise not to be vigilant.
So back to the HIPAA example, basically in the health care setting, they give one main rule along with a number of other HIPAA rules. That one rule is that if it isn't your patient or someone involved directly in your caseload--if you don't have anything to do with that patient, family, whatever, don't look at their HIPAA. Not my patient on in my caseload, I have no need to look at on the computer or on paper or re: phone conversations, whatever re: their information. And that's a pretty reasonable rule of thumb. Honestly I've got enough to do with my own patients/families. In the same token, for someone I'm interviewing in my HC organization, I don't need to ask about their gender, sexuality, etc as it pertains to the position for which I am interviewing. It' not relevant to what they will be doing, at all.

I ask you, so how much harder is it, in the same sense of things to simply "not go there" re: those things that do not directly pertain to medical school, medicine, etc? It's none of your business how I choose to manage by kids while going to med school. It's none of your business what my religion is. It may seem obvious to you what race I am, but maybe not, so tread carefully there.

Now, if the interviewee brings it up, then you are often considered off the hook. But it all reality, none of these areas covered under EEOC have anything to do with becoming a medical student or physician. If you are looking at AA issues, well, you still have to be careful. All some of us are saying is it's better to be safe than sorry. So, I will go on with my life, but I will think the person asking such question is clueless from an EEOC legal perspective, and so is their institution for not properly instructing them in the same.

 

[jl lin]

To some that say it's not sexist, I am saying it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the person's potential performance in MS or becoming a physician. Nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. In as much as that is true, steer clear from such questions. I've never been a part of any hiring where they were not very strict on such things. I don't think MSs should get any special privileges. All an interviewer has to do is to stay pertinent to direct issues on becoming a medical student and physician. The other crap simply doesn't matter; so it's best to steer clear of it.

Best idea is to follow this and apply it:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/types-educational-opportunities-discrimination

Again, this is not difficult. The question given above is just not relevant. I am not saying OP should get all crazy about it; but personally, I would never bring up gender or other EEOC during the interview/hiring process. Again, such questions re: those areas are NOT relevant. So play it smart. Lawsuits can fall on schools, and in fact have, as well as potential or actual employers.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

.

 

[bumblebee611]

Honestly Axes has been moving his position so much I can't even keep track of the argument any more. In the end I'll posit that you correct society by fighting intentionally sexist/racist/whateverist acts, not any act that is perceived as such. I don't even know how he would handle something like a woman suing because she thinks she was denied the job for being female. To me, if there is zero evidence that such sexism motivated the choice, end of discussion. To Axes, the action of not hiring the woman is inherently sexist separate from whether the actors held any sexist beliefs...what do you do to p̶u̶n̶i̶s̶h̶ correct the company?

So if Donald Trump says whatever racist thing he does about Mexican immigrants, it's all okay as long as he didn't mean any harm, and we should just take his word for it? That's why we don't do anything like what you propose in the employment context. Just because the employer doesn't mean to be sexist doesn't mean the company can't be sanctioned for sex discrimination in hiring. It all depends on the facts of the individual case. Hopefully if you are ever in a position to hire (or if you are currently in a position to hire) someone in HR will give you decent guidance on what constitutes an unlawful employment practice, and no, it isn't limited to announcing, "I'm a sexist, so I'm going to assault this female subordinate/coworker!"

 

[ZedsDed]

So if Donald Trump says whatever racist thing he does about Mexican immigrants, it's all okay as long as he didn't mean any harm, and we should just take his word for it? That's why we don't do anything like what you propose in the employment context. Just because the employer doesn't mean to be sexist doesn't mean the company can't be sanctioned for sex discrimination in hiring. It all depends on the facts of the individual case. Hopefully if you are ever in a position to hire (or if you are currently in a position to hire) someone in HR will give you decent guidance on what constitutes an unlawful employment practice, and no, it isn't limited to announcing, "I'm a sexist, so I'm going to assault this female subordinate/coworker!"

I would say that objective standards for labels need to exist. We can argue about what does and doesn't constitute sexism, but to say that sexism is whatever makes one feel victimized is silly and dangerous.

 

[efle]

So if Donald Trump says whatever racist thing he does about Mexican immigrants, it's all okay as long as he didn't mean any harm, and we should just take his word for it? That's why we don't do anything like what you propose in the employment context. Just because the employer doesn't mean to be sexist doesn't mean the company can't be sanctioned for sex discrimination in hiring. It all depends on the facts of the individual case. Hopefully if you are ever in a position to hire (or if you are currently in a position to hire) someone in HR will give you decent guidance on what constitutes an unlawful employment practice, and no, it isn't limited to announcing, "I'm a sexist, so I'm going to assault this female subordinate/coworker!"

You've missed the point. For a statement to be racist, it has to be a negative/mal-intended statement towards a race. I do not believe people are accidentally or unintentionally racist, by definition.

We actually do it exactly as I propose in the employment context. If someone brings suit and there is not evidence establishing racism/sexism motivated the decision, then it is dismissed and there is no penalty/punishment/correction towards the employer.

"Just because the employer doesn't mean to be sexist doesn't mean the company can't be sanctioned for sex discrimination in hiring"

Actually, yes, you do have to support that the employer makes decisions based on negative views of females to see them sanctioned for sex discrimination...

 

[jl lin]

I think what axes is saying is that maybe in this day, OP's situation should be considered sexist.

We would have to be in that interview room to see what's the real case. From the interviewer's words alone, I don't think it is sexist. However, I also don't think any woman should have to put up with snide comments from fellow staff members (no matter how insignificant they may seem to others) or anything that Goro mentioned.

Wow. The question was in no way relevant. It shouldn't have been asked.

 

[jl lin]

So if Donald Trump says whatever racist thing he does about Mexican immigrants, it's all okay as long as he didn't mean any harm, and we should just take his word for it? That's why we don't do anything like what you propose in the employment context. Just because the employer doesn't mean to be sexist doesn't mean the company can't be sanctioned for sex discrimination in hiring. It all depends on the facts of the individual case. Hopefully if you are ever in a position to hire (or if you are currently in a position to hire) someone in HR will give you decent guidance on what constitutes an unlawful employment practice, and no, it isn't limited to announcing, "I'm a sexist, so I'm going to assault this female subordinate/coworker!"

Right. And schools can and have been held by the same standards.

 

[jl lin]

I was just asked by an interviewer whether I have considered what it would be like to be a physician as a female. The follow up question - have I ever shadowed a female physician before? I thought it was illegal to ask such questions during interview.

I normally wouldn't think too much of it, but the entire interview was unpleasant and it seemed like more of an attack than well intentions.

Would it be appropriate to notify the admissions office? Or should I just let it go?

I won't tell you what to do, but no. It was not appropriate. The reality is certain schools get away with these kinds of things b/c they are betting on the applicant applying elsewhere and not wanting it to effect their chances of acceptance somewhere.

I am amazed that people don't see the trouble with questions like these. What is hard about discussing pertinent questions? That question was not relevant. Whether it was meant to get a knee-jerk reaction out of you or not, it's not appropriate. It would not be considered appropriate in the work world upon interview. Flying just under the radar is not a good idea. It's bad practice and it could cause some trouble. So the interviewer, regardless if male or female, should have avoided such questions.

 

[getdown]

I just wanted to quickly add that I had minority friends in medical school who were taken aside by minority faculty physicians and specifically counselled about the challenges of being a minority in medicine ... not unlike OPs situation. A lot of their warnings were very similar to gastropath's hypothetical situations i.e. what if you were misconstrued as the janitor or other ancillary staff. And their suggestion, like many posted on here already, is to politely correct them and move on with your day. Just to provide perspective that not only women deal with these issues.

 

[jl lin]

I might just be a stupid male who cant relate but I dont see anything wrong with those questions.

B/c it can lead to legal issues. Here:


http://www.justice.gov/crt/types-educational-opportunities-discrimination

 

[efle]

Right. And schools can and have been held by the same standards.

No not right, very not right. An action (hiring or admissions decision etc) is not inherently racist or sexist, it is only such when motivated by an actor's racist or sexist beliefs. This is why court cases look for bias in a long history of lopsided hiring/admission, to find evidence of such motivations, and why the question posed to juries is "in this instance" is their sexism/racism at play, not some general "is a woman being turned down for a job sexist"

 

[Axes]

Honestly Axes has been moving his position so much I can't even keep track of the argument any more. In the end I'll posit that you correct society by fighting intentionally sexist/racist/whateverist acts, not any act that is perceived as such. I don't even know how he would handle something like a woman suing because she thinks she was denied the job for being female. To me, if there is zero evidence that such sexism motivated the choice, end of discussion. To Axes, the action of not hiring the woman is inherently sexist separate from whether the actors held any sexist beliefs...what do you do to p̶u̶n̶i̶s̶h̶ correct the company?

What you are saying is logical in a society in which all identities are socially and institutionally equal. In reality, that's not the case. It was not my intention to get into the specifics of how a socially just world would function. I'm not qualified for that. I maintain that it's important for the world to be more socially just, and that we should listen to those negatively impacted by what we otherwise may consider a just status quo.

 

[jl lin]

Well. We've wandered into example to others territory.

There are equally difficult questions that can (should) be asked of male applicants. Let's say you are the male subspecialist who can perform a complex risky procedure on a female patient. She would prefer a female MD but none is available without a problematic delay. You know there is a decent chance of a bad outcome. Do you push her to let you do it? You know that if things go wrong, she will be very angry and blame you but that if you wait for the female MD, the odds of a bad outcome go up. How will you proceed?

My cousin was the female doc in this scenario. Bad outcome. She felt the male doc was weak for not pushing. He didn't feel like getting sued.

B/c right or wrong, the patient still has self-determination. You can try to influence; but if they say no, it's no. Outside of that, try to find another female physician somewhere as you try to effectively persuade her and/or her family.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

.

 

[Axes]

I would pose this question to every humanities Professor at my Alma Mater.

Haha, well I'm an English/Political Economy major so.

 

[efle]

What you are saying is logical in a society in which all identities are socially and institutionally equal. In reality, that's not the case. It was not my intention to get into the specifics of how a socially just world would function. I'm not qualified for that. I maintain that it's important for the world to be more socially just, and that we should listen to those negatively impacted by what we otherwise may consider a just status quo.

What a non-answer

 

[jl lin]

As a female, this whole thread just makes me depressed. I'm not even going to comment on most of this because so much of it is so blatantly sexist, and it's sad that so many of you have taken to attacking @twistedroses. Want an example of internet bullying? Congrats, this thread meets the qualifications perfectly.

However, I will say that it's BS to think that the interviewer couldn't have held sexist or bigoted views just because she was a woman. I have known many, many women who hold astonishingly conservative and/or backwards view about women. The fact that so many women support Trump only reaffirms this.

There is sexism in medicine, and THIS is the problem -- not how women react to it. At my home institution, a senior-level faculty member and renowned physician/researcher just lost his job this year over sexual harassment charges from multiple women. The year before, a department chief lost his job for similar charges. Should those women have simply thought to themselves, "Oh, this is how it is, I better just learn how to accept it?" I'm not implying OP's situation is anything remotely close to sexual harassment, but to be quite honest the responses on this thread have me alarmed.

Rather than rejecting and belittling the reactions of women to sexist remarks and implying that women should just "deal with it" to survive in medicine, why are we not instead questioning why it is still so common for coffee cart boys to think women are nurses, or for male doctors to call their female colleagues "hun," or for female residents to be held to a higher standard than males? I reject the fact that this is just "the way it is" and that I should "deal with this" as a physician. That doesn't mean that I will be thrown into a "tizzy" if I walk into a room and a patient hurls sexist slurs or worse at me. I assure you; I won't be. In fact, I will probably smile and completely ignore it. However, if one of my superiors makes sexist remarks or implies that women are in some way less equipped to practice medicine, you can be sure as hell that I will do everything in my power to report him OR her.

I'm sure I'll get tons of hate posts for writing this; go ahead.

This is incredibly true: you don't have to be a male to be a misogynist. Anyway, I won't judge the interviewer's motives; but I think she was not well-informed about how to steer clear of questions that could be construed as an EEOC-ish violation. Doesn't matter that it's school and not a job. Just don't go there and you're fine, period.

 

[bumblebee611]

I would say that objective standards for labels need to exist. We can argue about what does and doesn't constitute sexism, but to say that sexism is whatever makes one feel victimized is silly and dangerous.

There are objective standards, at least under law, and they aren't just "whatever makes one feel victimized." Nor are they dependent in all cases on whether the accused discriminator meant any harm or intended to be sexist or racist.