Submit Your Answers To; radiotalklr@gmail.com

Lesson Plan

Thesis: Institutions claim to judge applicants “fairly,” yet background checks and racial bias shape who is seen as a risk, who is forgiven, and who is hired.

Learning Objectives

• Objective 1: Students will explain how HR interprets a DUI vs. a layoff during hiring. Example: A student states that a DUI is labeled a “behavioral risk,” while a layoff is viewed as “economic hardship,” even if both applicants are homeless.
• Objective 2: Students will analyze how race historically influenced hiring outcomes beyond qualifications. Example: A student explains that white applicants often received more callbacks than Black applicants with equal or stronger records.

Learning Outcomes

• Outcome 1: Students can identify how “risk” is socially constructed in hiring. Example: A student notes that HR flags a DUI for liability but does not flag a layoff, even though both applicants need stable income.
• Outcome 2: Students can connect the scenario to historical racial hiring patterns. Example: A student cites research showing Black applicants with clean records were rejected at higher rates than white applicants with criminal records.

5E Learning Model

Engage: Present the scenario: John (DUI + eviction) and Bill (layoff + eviction) applying for the same custodial job. Ask: “Who gets hired—and why?”

Explore: Students compare HR interpretations of “risk,” then examine résumé‑callback studies showing racial disparities.

Explain: Class discusses how background checks appear neutral but are interpreted through racialized assumptions about reliability and danger.

Elaborate: Students rewrite the hiring decision as if both applicants were Black, then as if both were white, analyzing how race shifts institutional judgment.

Evaluate: Students produce a three‑sentence explanation of how background checks and race interact to shape hiring outcomes.

Assessment (1 item)

Exit Ticket: “Explain which applicant is more likely to be hired and how race historically influenced similar hiring decisions.”