How would you feel if you saw a job posting that said:
“Our company is looking for physical labor workers who can lift 100 pounds or more. Only men can apply.”
Or what about this one:
“We are looking for a teacher. Only women will be considered. Please specify that you are a female when you apply so that you can be shortlisted.”
You get the idea. In this time and age I can hardly imagine seeing a job posting that describes the ideal candidate as white, thin, tall, blue-eyed, brown-haired, married, straight female. This is because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
Job postings from LinkedIn and others
Many companies now go to great lengths to hire people from different racial, religious, cultural, gender, etc. groups. Thus, I was surprised to see some of the job openings that LinkedIn suggested to me this week. Although I have a job (more than one, in fact), I clicked on the suggestions out of curiosity. One of these postings was for an English Linguist position in, well, LinkedIn itself (LinkedIn: English Linguist). I scanned over the list of responsibilities that a potential hire will have to fulfill. Some of these included identifying systematic relationships between concepts such as job titles, skills, and certificates, a lot of research on phrases, terms, data, etc. It looked interesting … until I scrolled down to the requirements section. The first line said:
• Native speaker of English
Now, this got my interest because I didn’t expect this from a large and reputable company like LinkedIn (owned by Microsoft corporation since December 2016). I started digging more and, to my surprise, I saw that LinkedIn was not alone. Some of the other positions I looked at were for content writers, linguistic data specialists, etc.
One of them (Topcontent: English Content Writers & Proofreaders (remote, freelance)) said:
• You must be a native English speaker.
• Please highlight this on your CV/Cover letter as otherwise you cannot be shortlisted.
Another one (QuillBot: Linguistic Data Specialist (English) {Part Time/Hour Based}) said:
• Native speaker of North American English
(born/raised in the USA or Canada and lived there for the majority of the past 5 years)
Now, that’s specific. Sorry Brits, but you are excluded from this one too. Feels icky? Welcome to the club.
What I found startling though was that none of these companies was looking for an actual speaker. Their job postings were for content writers, linguists, and annotators. Unfortunately, there is still a foreign accent bias in the US, but none of these positions mentioned anything about speaking. This means that, according to these companies, it is impossible for a nonnative user of a language to reach a near-native level in writing.
Why this is wrong
The United States is a country that strives for equal opportunity for everyone. But in this case a group of people is still discriminated against on the basis of their native tongue – something that they cannot change. Below are four points that describe why this is not right.
Language and culture can be acquired
There are millions of nonnative speakers in the US, many of whom have acquired a near-native level of English. In addition, they are so culturally well-adjusted that it’s hard to tell them apart from people who were born in the US. I myself am not a native speaker, but I’ve lived in the US for twenty years, I’ve studied and worked here, I’ve written for a local newspaper, and I know the culture. But I cannot apply for the positions mentioned in these job offerings because I didn’t grow up speaking English.
The Joseph Conrad phenomenon
Some nonnative speakers are able to master aspects of the written language to such a level that they can teach many native speakers a thing or two about grammar, syntax, and composition. For example, the Polish-born writer Joseph Conrad was able to master writing in English to such a level that scholars who study language and linguistics refer to it as the Joseph Conrad phenomenon. The phenomenon refers to the ability of an adult second language learner to master aspects of the written language, but to speak with a distinct nonnative accent. Another renowned writer was Vladimir Nabokov, who grew up speaking three languages, including English, but his native language was Russian.
Although most nonnative speakers might not be as exceptionally talented and skillful as Conrad and Nabokov, many of them are able to write at a native level.
The bottom line – it’s illegal
Under US federal law it is illegal to discriminate based on a native language. According to 42 U.S. Code § 2000e–2:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer —
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Although it is fair to require a certain level of English language skills when it comes to particular positions like writers or journalists, it’s against the law to limit such offers to native speakers. Unless a business can prove that it’s absolutely impossible for nonnative speakers to reach fluency that is comparable to native speakers and that is required for a given position, discriminating against nonnative speakers would be discriminating on the basis of national origin.
It is astonishing that in today’s world, when it’s illegal to discriminate against on the basis of age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, race, color, and national origin, millions of people in the US are denied the opportunity to apply for a job because they didn’t grow up speaking English. This stereotypical belief that a nonnative speaker is unable to reach a native-like fluency in writing or linguistics resembles the old-fashioned belief that women are bad leads because they are “too emotional.”
Speaking of writing, no one can deny that many native speakers make basic grammar mistakes. I often see natives putting apostrophes before the final “s” in the plural form of a noun making it look like a possessive noun. Other common mistakes include “should of” instead of “should have”, “your” instead of “you’re”, or “their” instead of “they’re”. Such candidates, however, even if not hired, have the opportunity to apply for the positions in question – an opportunity that nonnative speakers are denied.
It is also unethical
Such postings are detrimental to nonnative speakers’ self-confidence. Many of them already feel like imposters and feel the need to always learn more in order to prove to native speakers that they know the language and culture. In a world where all of us have become more mobile than ever and relocate for a job, education, or marriage, it is unethical to imply that a certain group of people will never be good enough at a language that they have mastered and used for years.
When it comes to culture, slang, and idioms, certain words and phrases can be generational or regional. In addition, thanks to social media, new phrases and abbreviations seem to pop up with the speed of light. So all of us – native and nonnative speakers – have to learn, adjust, and keep up with the new world we live in.
Please leave your comment in the comment section and share this post on social media using the sharing buttons below the text.
Don’t forget to join our free Speaking Club and become the confident speaker that you know you can be.
Share this page:
So true! I see it all the time in the job postings and it’s not only for writers but for English teachers as well. Like you can only teach good English if you’re a native speaker.
Yes, I know. That kind of discrimination unfortunately still exists.
I thought that this type of discrimination was long gone. Luckily, no all American companies break the rule like LinkedIn and others do. As a matter of fact, companies in my cities are required to hired a percentage number of minority in their staff, or they get in trouble.
With all due respect, a position such as “LINGUISTIC DATA Specialist” is completely different from positions that merely require competency in English. Your complaint is equivalent to claiming ableism for positions that require a person to lift upwards of 100 pounds or one that requires 20-20 color vision. Consider taking a more careful look next time at what these positions involve rather than immediately concluding discrimination.
Hi a(nonymous?).
As a word of clarification, I did carefully read all three job postings, and concluded that they are discriminatory based on their content and the legal (US) definition of discrimination. Unbiased job requirements should list skills required to perform the job. The term “skills” is the key point here. Definition of term “skills” does not include: individual’s race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. All three job postings that I cited include a requirement on national origin. Instead of describing the required level of knowledge of English, they all use the term “native speaker,” which is an example of discriminatation and bias implying that no nonnative speaker can achieve the required skills.
Regarding the particular position of “Linguistic Data Specialist” from QuillBot, the first bullet point in section “Job Qualifications and Skills” uses terms: “native speaker,” “born/raised in the USA or Canada,” “lived there for the majority of the past 5 years.” None of these terms fall into the categories within the definition of “skill.” There are 7 other bullet points in section “Job Qualifications and Skills” as well as 5 extra points in section “Desired Qualifications and Skills.” None of these points makes any reference to the knowledge of English or experience with linguistics. QuillBot demonstrates here an extreme form of bias, where the entire requirement on familiarity with English and linguistics is condensed to: national origin, place of birth, and place of living in the last 5 years. Again, this is pure discrimination.
Lastly, let me comment on the two hypothetical examples of job requirements that you gave:
1a. must lift upwards of 100 pounds
1b. must have 20-20 color vision
These are correctly formulated and unbiased job requirements that focus solely on the required skills. On the other hand, here are examples of inappropriate, biased and discriminatory “translations”:
2a. must be a male under 30 years old
2b. must be a female with blue eyes
I hope you can see the difference.
While I understand the point you are trying to make, I’m sorry but you are reaching. These are all Linguist positions and native level fluency is a “thing”. Especially when it comes to language research or building tools that deal with language I do not believe it is discriminatory at all given that there is a certain mastery of a language necessary to be able to account for various linguistic phenomena and in many cases this means native level fluency. Sincerely, a linguist.
Hi Linguist, Thank you for your comment. Indeed these are linguist positions and it is absolutely reasonable to expect requirements of high level of fluency with the language – even including a “native-like fluency.” However, none of the three job postings I referenced in my post included such terminology. Instead of referring to the required level of knowledge of English, they use terms: “native speaker”, “born/raised in the USA or Canada,” and “lived there for the majority of the past 5 years.” All these incorrectly imply that no nonnative speaker can achieve the “native-like fluency,” which is an example of – possibly unconscious – bias. This does result in discrimination, where nonnative speakers with native-like fluency in English cannot apply for these jobs.