Kwame Anthony Appiah, who has been the The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist since 2015 and teaches philosophy at NYU, has been in a rut for months, choosing queries to answer from the Woke and Wonderful like “My mother likes Trump; should we be mean to her?” This time “The Ethicist responds to an ethical dilemma I have had to face myself: “Is it right to accept a job when I know the company discriminated against another candidate?”
The question:
I have been out of work for four months. I recently had an interview for a management-level position in my field, during which the interviewer asked a number of questions regarding my marital status, parental status and spouse’s occupation. I’ve spent most of my career in management, and the questions are clearly inappropriate and at odds with civil rights protections. I answered the questions, because I knew the responses would be in my favor: I’m a middle-aged guy whose spouse works remotely and son is in college. I’m aware of an internal candidate for the job, a younger mother of two school-age children, and the interviewer made comments about divided responsibilities and time commitments.
I kind of need the job, which raises two scenarios. In the first, I withdraw from the process. Should I notify the internal candidate of the legal violation, because I suspect (although have not confirmed) that the same questions were asked of her? In the second, I accept the position. How should I deal with the other candidate, who would be my subordinate, knowing that a likely E.E.O.C. violation tainted my hire? And additionally, should I notify the E.E.O.C. myself, regardless of whether I continue with this company?
The professor answers this one correctly, pointing out that in fact the writer doesn’t know that discrimination is the reason why the internal candidate didn’t get the job, nor that she will get the job if he boycotts the process, and that at least she has a job, so falling on his sword when as far as he knows she is a bad fit in other ways is self-destructive grandstanding. I would add that this particular form of discrimination under EEOC regulations is not unethical and shouldn’t be illegal.
I once was hiring a project manager for a crucial, rush project that would take intense work over the coming twelve months. I ultimately hired a young woman, who hid from me the fact that she was pregnant. She got her benefits, and I ended up having to hire a second project manager because her pregnancy and delivery endangered the project. The law prevented me from acquiring information I had a legitimate reason to know. It’s like being prevented from asking a Sherpa in an interview if he’s afraid of heights.
Another time, when I was working in the Georgetown Law Center administration, an aspiring applicant for the school came to me with what she felt was an ethical dilemma. She asked if she should mention on her application that she was of Asian heritage, for her mother was Japanese. She neither looked Asian nor had a surname that would suggest it. She said that her family was wealthy and she had suffered no disadvantages as a result of her heritage. She knew that the law school was also in the midst of an affirmative action orgy, and that flagging herself as a minority would vastly increase her odds of being admitted. She asked me what she should do. She feared she would be taking advantage of system designed to help students less fortunate than her.
First, I congratulated her for raising the issue. I then told her that she absolutely should reveal her minority credentials. Her test scores and grades put her in the middle of the pack of non-minority applicants, but in the upper range of the minority pool. “It isn’t as if you aren’t qualified to go here; you obviously are. Yes, it’s a stupid system, but it is the system, and you have every right to take advantage of it. The system either will work against you or for you. It’s not unethical to choose the latter, and foolish not to. And you shouldn’t feel like you are doing anything wrong.”
She entered “Japanese-American” on her application, and was admitted.
I wonder what happened to her…

How easily people fill in the blanks when they don’t have all the information. The letter writer just knows that the current employee will not get the job and that she won’t get it because she was the victim of discriminatory hiring practices. As you pointed out, he doesn’t know that. It just fits the internal narrative that his worldview built.
As I began reading the second anecdote, I speculated — incorrectly — that the reason for the trepidation at mentioning being part Asian was to avoid being discriminated AGAINST by the admissions process.
My, how the wheels have turned.
–Dwayne