Blog

Screening Job Applicants: Beyond Controversy Into Practicality

Screening Job Applicants: Beyond Controversy Into Practicality

The ongoing Israel-Hamas War has been one of the most divisive issues of the past year. At seemingly all levels of society and across political lines, the war has triggered deep feelings and, often, disruptive actions. Thousands of protests have taken place across the Western world since October 7th – be they pro-Palestine or pro-Israel. While protests are a fundamental aspect of open societies, the last ten months have seen particularly vitriolic protests that have led many, including employers, to closely monitor who they associate with. 

Recently, the international law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, whose client list includes Goldman Sachs, Google, and Tesla, has been making headlines due to its new screening policy of potential job applicants. According to Joseph C. Shenker, Chairperson of Sullivan & Cromwell, job applicants who participated in anti-Israel protests which devolved into blatantly antisemitic rhetoric and actions can be disqualified. 

The law firm has hired a team that specializes in background checks, which includes reviewing news footage, social media, and viral videos to determine whether applicants participated in anti-Israel protests. Even if the applicants themselves did not utter antisemitic or contentious phrases (including “From the River to the Sea”), if they attended a protest at which these types of things were said, they could potentially be disqualified. 

The New York Times has reported that four other Wall Street firms are considering implementing similar policies. But Sullivan & Cromwell is not the first law firm to tread these dangerous waters. 

Following the October 7 attack on Israel, law firm Davis Polk rescinded job offers to three students over their alleged connection to a letter blaming Israel for the war. Winston & Strawn also rescinded a job offer to a student who blamed Israel entirely in an online publication. 

There is now a cottage industry of activist groups who seek to “name and shame” individuals who they see as particularly egregious offenders, highlighting their perceived offenses for existing or potential employers. As a result, the widespread use of masking has proliferated among protest groups.

Critics and Supporters

Sullivan & Cromwell’s policy has drawn criticism from Palestine supporters and free speech proponents, as they view the policy as an effort to silence criticism of Israel, thereby squelching free speech. Moreover, they say that Sullivian & Cromwell’s policy equates all protestors with antisemites. It certainly is not a simple black and white call to make. Criticism is understandable, as it is difficult to decide where the line is drawn.

According to  Sullivan & Cromwell, it is disruptive and/or unappealing to accept a job applicant who is potentially susceptible to “mob mentality” and/or promotes antisemitic rhetoric.  This decision, however, has generated significant criticism regarding why Sullivan & Cromwell are singling out antisemitism as a threat to their firm.

Law firms, which are undoubtedly familiar with discrimination laws, reserve the right to implement their own hiring policies. Shenker says that the firm’s policy is an extension of prohibiting hate speech in the workplace. Neil Barr, chairman of David Polk, said, “What’s happening here is really just the implementation of basic work force decency standards.” 

Practicality: The Ever-Growing Importance of Corporate Background Checks

While hiring (or not hiring) policies may draw criticism, and could have legal ramifications, the fact is that companies are relying more than ever on professional background checks in their hiring processes. There are two main reasons for this:

  1. Discrimination laws: While Sullivan & Cromwell will be performing background checks on potential applicants, they will not directly ask applicants about their personal beliefs and opinions. Many of these questions, of course, are illegal, as is discrimination based on gender, religion, age, race, sexual orientation, etc. Background checks offer companies a way of investigating potential employees without violating the law. 
  1. Efficiency: Professional background checks offer the most efficient, comprehensive understanding of potential employees. This ends up saving time and money — because hiring the wrong person for a job is a waste of both resources. On the other hand, hiring a person who fits with the company culture and environment is an investment that pays off in the long-term.

Today, when so much of a person’s life is out in the open, background checks are easier and more crucial than ever. A professional due diligence team can help companies make the best possible hiring choices.

Interested in learning more about corporate background checks? Contact us today.