Government Operations committee  Exactly. That's how it worked, as the president explained. When information was listed in the statement of merit criteria, it was not redacted.

Government Operations committee  Absolutely. Take, for example, a technical position requiring expertise in Great Lakes water analysis. When an applicant had experience doing that in Lake Erie, for instance, we did not redact the name Lake Erie. Similarly, that information would be revealed in the case of an ap

Government Operations committee  We don't really have an answer to that question. It is nevertheless a good one. What other studies have suggested—and not shown, in my view—is that, redacting information from job applications makes it more difficult to assess the extent or breadth of the experience in question,

Government Operations committee  Every year we conduct a series of outreach activities targeted at specific groups. This is part of the whole idea of ensuring that people are made aware and of generating interest in applying from within various employment groups. We also have these career streams and various inv

Government Operations committee  The training around diversity and inclusion is training for hiring managers to find a way to put aside their biases. Part of that includes concrete things like ensuring that you have what we call an “inclusive selection” committee. By having visible minorities sit on the selectio

Government Operations committee  That's a terrific question. In fact, when we looked at the research, we saw a mixed bag of results. Sometimes you see a beneficial effect. In other instances you'll actually see an adverse effect. There is a paucity of research as well. We looked at maybe 10 to 12 serious studies

Government Operations committee  Yes.

Government Operations committee  It will be a little more than 12 months, we estimate.

Government Operations committee  No one was disadvantaged in the pilot project—

Government Operations committee  Yes. We took precautions to ensure that we would have a fair approach in this process. One of the things we did, where there was disagreement or somebody was being screened out, was ask hiring managers to sit down and look at the application again together and determine if the pe

Government Operations committee  We don't really have an answer for that. We have to admit that it's a very intriguing result. We are discussing with some academics, for example, why that would be. At this point, we have no real defined reason why that would be. Any explanation would be speculative at this point

Government Operations committee  That's a very good question. In fact, what you see in the report are the initial decisions. What happens to the candidate after is a different matter, because hiring managers, where they disagree, will sit together and look at it factually and see whether or not the person will g

Government Operations committee  No, it's compared with the traditional method. If you look at the table, you'll see that there are two methods to the left, which is the traditional method, which is all the information available, and the second row, which is the anonymized method. It's a strict comparison of the

Government Operations committee  Technically, it's impossible. In French, the phrase “Je suis diplômé”—“I am a graduate”—would take an additional “e” at the end in the case of a female graduate. The removal of that “e” automatically indicates the information being excluded. Even if the resume were to be anonymiz