Research suggests diversity signals can heighten some applicants’ concerns about bias, while inclusive, equal-opportunity language may make belonging clearer.
Hiring messages meant to broaden an applicant pool can have an unintended effect: some people may read them as a warning that they are less welcome. Research by University of Washington psychologist Cheryl Kaiser and colleagues suggests that diversity signals can increase white applicants’ perceptions of bias, even when the signals don’t change who gets hired. That finding helps explain why wording matters, while also leaving a clear limit: perceived unfairness is not evidence that discrimination occurred.
What one internship post set off
A recent social-media post from Senator Edward Markey sought interns for his Boston office and encouraged applications from “BIPOC, LGBTQ+, working class, veterans, and other underrepresented candidates with Massachusetts ties.” Critics framed the outreach as a sign that white men would be disadvantaged. Some went further, alleging that the post violated civil-rights protections or reflected a wider effort to deny young white men employment.
Those broader claims go beyond what the post establishes. Encouraging particular groups to apply does not show that other applicants will be rejected, and several groups named in the message include white men. But the reaction points to a real communications problem: language intended as outreach can be interpreted as a signal about who is likely to succeed.
The debate also sits within a larger disagreement over hiring practices that consider race or sex. Some employers and institutions have faced discrimination claims involving white people or men, while public opinion surveys have found broad opposition to preferential treatment in hiring and promotions. Those disputes form part of the context, but they don’t establish that any specific outreach message changed a hiring decision.
What the research says about diversity signals
In a 2021 study, Kaiser and her co-authors found that simply showing white participants pro-diversity messages could increase their belief that hiring favored people of color over white men. That response appeared even when participants were given information suggesting white candidates already had an advantage, or that promotion opportunities were available to everyone. It also did not depend on participants’ prior views about group hierarchy or identification with their racial group.
A separate 2015 study by Kaiser’s team found that pro-diversity messages could lead white male mock job applicants to anticipate discrimination and show cardiovascular stress. These experiments measure reactions and expectations in research settings. They don’t demonstrate that applicants were actually treated unfairly in workplaces, or predict how every person will respond to a particular message.
The distinction matters in both directions. A person’s concern about bias does not prove biased treatment. At the same time, dismissing every concern as bad faith can obscure how people interpret hiring messages and can make it harder to build trust in an organization’s stated commitments.
Signals can fall short for supporters, too
Kaiser’s research also raises a question for employers that use diversity language to signal inclusion: does the message match people’s experience inside the organization? Her 2020 research found that some racial-minority employees saw diversity signals as overstating an employer’s commitment, a perception linked to feeling less able to fit in or thrive.
That leaves a difficult gap. A message may prompt some white applicants to suspect unfairness, while some minority employees may see it as a promise the organization hasn’t fulfilled. Kaiser argues that the kinds of signals that trigger backlash may do little to diversify a workplace. The studies don’t settle which hiring strategies work best, but they suggest that slogans alone may not create fair outcomes or a sense of belonging.
Young men may be especially alert to this language. The source article cites survey findings showing that the share of young men who perceived discrimination against men rose from one-third in 2019 to 51 percent in 2025. Those figures describe perceptions, not verified rates of discrimination, but they help explain why an explicitly group-focused message can resonate sharply with some younger applicants.
Make the invitation clear for everyone
One alternative is to pair outreach with an unmistakable statement that everyone is welcome to apply and will be considered fairly. A 2015 study by social psychologist Wiebren Jansen and co-authors found that including majority-group members in an organization’s diversity approach could help white men with a strong need to belong feel included and could increase support for diversity efforts within organizations.
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s internship page offers an example of that approach. It describes her office as an equal-opportunity employer, lists characteristics that aren’t grounds for discrimination, and encourages “all individuals from all backgrounds to apply.” The wording speaks directly to people who may wonder whether they belong, while keeping the invitation open to everyone.
Clear, inclusive wording can’t resolve every disagreement about fair hiring, and it doesn’t replace fair selection practices. But it can reduce ambiguity about who is welcome. Employers can make their intent easier to understand by pairing outreach with a plain statement of equal opportunity and by ensuring their actual hiring process supports that promise.
