Yes, the point is your need to tread carefully. Like it or agree or not gender is a federally protected criterion under EO and civil rights.
So say this person didn't get an acceptance after the interview where the innocent question of being a female physician or shadowing a female physician was asked. She could file a complaint; b/c it's a question that singles out her gender rather than focuses on what it would be like for her to be a physician.
Sure, people are what they are. Their unique perspectives of being male, female, gay, straight, religious, non-religious and such, I am sure, will influence their life such that these things may also indirectly affect what they perceive their role in medicine would be like. But you are singling out these protected areas, and make no mistake, whether you agree with it or not, you had better be careful with it.
As I said before, I don't see how such questions are relevant to being a physician, so it's a bit of a flag to me that anyone would lead or include them during the interview process. If, however, someone has a compelling URM story, finesse that out of him or her w/o hitting on an area of protected status. Some interviewers are better and wiser at that than others.
Hey I don't have a problem with my gender. A person walking down the street could ask me how I like it, and while it would seem a bit strange out of the blue, I'd smile and say I pretty much like it just fine. But when you are interviewing someone for a position or a seat in a program, everything you say to them will pretty much be connected to "How's this affect my chances of acceptance?" in their mind. You may be trying to throw questions to see if you get some visceral versus controlled response. These questions are silly anyway, b/c a lot of people know how to play them. You get genuine stuff out of people over a period of time; b/c people are like onions--even when they are fairly forthright.
The genuinely logical issue here is this. Why make a specific issue out of something that falls into the protected-status area like this? The interviewer didn't have to separate out gender. He could have asked her about what she feels medicine would be like for her, given her current and long-term goals. He could have asked her about sharing shadowing experiences with various physicians. The idea that he specifically separated out gender brings things into question, and if the OP wanted, she in fact could report that this was an unnecessary line of questioning; b/c what the heck does it have to do with medical school or becoming a physician???? Ultimately these questions that refer to protected status cannot be used to hold someone back for admission or a position, according to the law. So here again I say, “Why ask them?” Like it or not, that's the way it is so that people wouldn't get discriminated against b/c of gender, religion, race, age, sexuality, etc. The protected areas are outlined as protected for a reason.
I simply think that the interviewer should re-think how he formulated these, perhaps purposely, reactivity-producing questions.
For the zillionth time, if he had asked a him or her how he or she thought being gay would affect him or her as a physician, you’d better bet this would get reported. Why should it be different when someone purposely separates out gender?
It violates the spirit of the CR laws is all I am saying, and watch it. Not everyone is going to run away and say, "Oh I am not going to report this b/c it could affect me getting into another MS." This is equivalent to being bullied by a mob mentality.
So, yes! Some people have the chutzpa to say, "Wait a second now? I am not going to be penalized for standing up for equal opportunity protection, and questions that seem to be leading in that regard." If you are getting any federal funding at all, you need to be careful about stepping too close to or over the line. If all private, you still have to be careful.
There is a reason employers have been instructed by their LDs to be careful with this kind of thing. It doesn't matter if you like it, agree wit it, find it thought-policing, which really isn't what Orwell was talking about. None of that matters.
What matters is if it can be shown that the line of questioning can in itself be questioned as stepping into a protected status area unnecessarily. The OP didn't bring up this herself, that we know of; hence, the question remains. Why did the interviewer bring it up in such a way? Why did he single that out?
The thought-police stuff is indeed more about the extreme application of PC stuff--like in The Coddling of American Students thread. This issue raised by the OP is an entirely different issue, and you have to make the distinctions, given the federal regulation and the fact that singling out each or any of these areas in completely impertinent to seeking the position or seat in med school. Completely unnecessary.
If you want to pose visceral or Gotcha kinds of question, you have to be more careful and smooth with it, b/c it could end up causing a problem.
If you had asked me such a question, sure I wouldn't get all shocked over it. I would inwardly think that this person isn't wise about his line of questioning. I'd still answer the question, b/c "Don't hate the player, hate the game." And that's what such questions are about--trying to game someone into some visceral response or seeing if they can keep their VSs controlled while hooked up to the lie, I mean, emotional detector. LOL Personally, I don’t’ know if I would have reported it; b/c I wasn’t there. But later on, I may have written that I find the line of questions problematic, given the need to give everyone an equal opportunity and provisions set forth by EO Laws. Doesn’t make me overly sensitive whacko. I am conservative for God’s sake. But if you have laws under the guise of fairness, well let’s make sure they are applied fairly else they aren’t worth crap.
These games go on all the time, and you can't let them bother you. But when it comes to going for a position and someone brings up a protected status issue in the way the person in the OP did, yes. Definitely someone can file a complaint about it; b/c it was a completely unnecessary question--just as asking about someone's religion or sexuality are unnecessary questions. Since they are unnecessary questions that separate out a protected status, if the applicant did or didn't get in, the law could find merit in her complaint b/c of those kinds of questions. Just b/c it's gotten away with does not mean it will always be so. Better to think and pose your interview questions more carefully.
