“Research proves that wearing the veil is a discriminatory factor in hiring.” This title, which sounds like a definitive truth and denounces the injustice which would strike some of our fellow citizens, was taken up by all the media, from New Obs has CNews. But does this research really prove what it says?
Under the intimidating name of “study report: Discrimination in hiring veiled women in France: a test on access to apprenticeship” and behind a falsely official name to better impress (“National Observatory of Discrimination and Equality in Higher Education”), four researchers, Denis Anne, Amynata Bagayoko, Sylvain Chareyron and Yannick L’Horty, attached to the Gustave Eiffel University , published on December 9 an academic work highlighting that wearing a veil drastically reduces the chances of landing an apprenticeship contract.
The investigation of these economists consisted of carrying out a testingaccording to a method widely practiced in other disciplines (sociology or management sciences), namely sending CVs of first-year BTS accounting students, veiled and not veiled, to 2,000 companies drawn at random. After analyzing the feedback, these researchers conclude that wearing a veil “reduces the chances of receiving a positive response by more than 80%”. The public can only be moved and denounce discrimination.
However, reading the document reveals numerous anomalies. Firstly, the number of CVs is low and the documents differ on variables other than appearance, with problematic formal errors (different first and last name in the same CV, etc.), making the comparison uncertain (which factor explains the answer, positive or negative?). The very principle of testing is inoperative. Furthermore, a second atypical process: there is no control group with another variable, making it possible to measure possible discrimination linked to the veil (for example, people with or without visible caps or tattoos). In addition to the veil, the authors use a purely subjective criterion (the “suggestion of a North African origin”), which is in principle unverifiable. In addition, these are spontaneous applications, without an identified position. Finally, the response rate is very low.
What does this mean? Quite simply, the main reaction of companies is not to respond to candidates, whether veiled or not. Clearly, the responses received form a microscopic sample on which the authors then calculate relative risks, based on non-significant percentages. The only tangible result is that there is no effect of wearing the veil on the probability of obtaining a response. Veiled or not, candidates do not receive a job offer. The authors note that “the response rate is 8.5% for all candidates combined, that of non-negative responses is 2.4% and that of positive responses is 0.5%” – in this insignificance, the veil has an effect of 1%, with a significance threshold of 5%!
In a word, the statistical treatment and the hermetic vocabulary of economists mask an absence of convincing results. But there is still more.
Ignorance of recruitment practices
The unfolding of this research does not fail to amaze. Because this study does not deal with what is highlighted to the general public – the possible discrimination linked to wearing the veil – but only with the preference for clothing conforming to professional standardization.
By offering a testing CVs with or without a veil, authors can easily alarm a novice reader. However, poorly designed, their methodological system does not test any hypothesis concerning the veil: the candidates’ outfit could have been completely different (religious or not), the results would have been identical or certainly even more unfavorable. For what ? Because the comparison with a professional-looking outfit necessarily turns to the disadvantage of the incongruous outfit with regard to company criteria. In addition, the authors’ lack of knowledge of the law makes them forget the essentials. Case law confirms the limits of freedom of dress in the professional context. The justifications are numerous: companies can cite safety, hygiene, image or decency to impose appropriate clothing. These notions are sufficiently comprehensive to allow disciplinary recalls, justified dismissals or refusals to hire. Furthermore, managerial standardization is extremely powerful, as shown by recognized research on the subject or the fact that management firms makeover propose to review the appearance of people far from the job market to facilitate their hiring. In this context, the veil is as inappropriate as the other outfits that have fueled jurisprudence, no more, no less.
But the researchers constructed their investigation to obtain the conclusion they desired.
The candidates did not receive responses because they sent CVs haphazardly, at a time when we recruit via social networks like LinkedIn or HelloWork. The veil changes absolutely nothing. And it is quite eloquent to read, in a note at the end of the document, a timid admission: “In the estimates presented, all the offers tested were retained. However, for a significant part of the offers, none of the candidates received of responses It is possible to consider that these tests do not provide any information on the discriminatory behavior or not of the company and that they should not be considered in the estimation.
In short, the research is poorly constructed, the results non-existent, but the authors nevertheless communicate about discrimination, with an appearance of scientificity.
Irresponsible media coverage
At a time when the trial of the instigators of the deadly attack against Samuel Paty is taking place, in a context of international conflicts linked in part to the Islamist question, threats of jihadist attacks in France and national tensions motivated by aggressive communitarianism of On both sides of the political spectrum, researchers in the humanities and social sciences have a particular responsibility. The authors of this research without any validity have made a mistake. The slogan used by newspapers, television and social networks is not only alarmist but, worse, turns out to be an easily exploitable blast.
This report offers fair calculations on things that are statistically insignificant and politically dangerous. It shows that SMEs do not respond to spontaneous applications, regardless of the type of applicant, nothing else. Perhaps the veil constitutes a factor in discrimination in hiring. We don’t know anything about it. But this study does not show that. And its media coverage is truly irresponsible, a worrying signal of the desire among some to favor ideology over methodology.
The signatories: Joan Le Goff (professor of management sciences, University Paris-Est Créteil), Philippe Jourdan, (professor of management sciences, University Paris-Est Créteil), Jean-Claude Pacitto, HDR lecturer in management sciences (Université Paris-Est Créteil), Dominique Schnapper (sociologist and political scientist), Nathalie Heinich (sociologist), Pierre-André Taguieff (historian of ideas, CNRS), Philippe d’Iribarne (economist, CNRS), Céline Masson (university professor, UPJV), Martine Benoit (professor of Germanic studies, University of Lille), Pierre Vermeren (university professor in contemporary history at La Sorbonne) and Isabelle de Mecquenem (associate professor of philosophy).