Universities are piloting a new scheme where admissions will be assessed “name-blind” to help prevent discrimination based on any assumptions made regarding students’ names.
The universities trialling the system this year are Exeter, Huddersfield, Liverpool and Winchester. The idea was originally suggested in 2015 by then-Prime Minister David Cameron, as he criticised universities for still failing to welcome students from black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities.
By keeping prospective students’ names hidden, any (conscious or unconscious) bias towards gender, ethnicity, religion or anything else can be avoided.
It is a policy also being trialled in companies like Deloitte. Reports have suggested that those with ‘white’-sounding names are 74% more likely to get a positive response from a job interview than those with “ethnic minority sounding” names.
Of course, the fact that this is needed is problem enough.
In 2015, a report by the University of Manchester and Leeds Beckett academies found that BAME students are less likely to be admitted to top universities than their white counterparts. Even when they had similar results.
The director of ethnic equality thinktank the Runnymede Trust, Omar Khan, said that in 2015 there was:
Evidence that white British students with lower A-level results are more likely to get into elite British universities than Asian students with higher A-level results suggests there is unconscious bias, if not positive discrimination, in favour of white university applicants.
Other studies have heard from staff and students in UK colleges and universities that “covert racism and discrimination” persists. In 2014, nearly 60% of BAME students and staff in higher education questioned in a survey said they felt they had been discriminated against.
According to one respondent:
You are not taken as seriously and it is as if you have to do more/owe more in order to receive the same as a white British individual.
In that same Runnymede Trust report, it was also found that 92.4% of university professors are white.
Conscious or unconscious bias?
In 2015, the university admissions system UCAS released its own report into this. It concluded that, although there is a gap between the amount of offers given to white students and BAME students, this can be accounted for by BAME students being more likely to apply for competitive courses.
Unfortunately, this analysis ignores the nuances of unconscious bias and systemic racism. To fully consider the possibility that ethnicity plays a role in students getting university places, the reality of being BAME in the UK must be taken into account.
That includes the invisible and explicit barriers that are placed in front of BAME people throughout their lives. Suggesting that BAME students get worse A Level results than their white counterparts does not examine why that might be. And stating that there is no bias in university admissions when the makeup of university staff is so white is a difficult one to prove.
One academic, Dr Vikki Boliver, went further. She suggested that admissions staff may be rejecting applications from BAME students on the basis of engineering the demographic make-up to better represent the general populace. If that’s true, BAME students are essentially being rejected for being BAME.
Name-blind applications will at least remove the possibility of those kinds of biases. It will end selection based on a pupil’s ethnicity, even if the reasoning is not a straightforward prejudice against BAME people.
With that in mind, it will be interesting to observe the admissions statistics of the trial universities after the first run. It might just reveal something we’d all find uncomfortable.
– Support the work of the Runnymede Trust.
Featured image via Flickr/Luftphilia
We need your help to keep speaking the truth
Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.
Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.
We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.
In return, you get:
* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop
Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.
With your help we can continue:
* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do
We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?