<p>
</p>
<p>Allow me to propose a highly plausible counterfactual. A human resources staffer, rather than a hiring manager, makes a determining regarding which candidates to screen out for an interview based on whether somebody graduated from UM, which is presumed to be UMAA and therefore is approved, vs. UM-Flint. The screen could be such that anybody not from a top 25 school (such as UMAA) would be screened out. The candidates in question never interact with the HR staffer during their jobs (as, let’s face it, most of us will never interact with HR). The only task that HR fills is the screening process.</p>
<p>So somebody with an UM-Flint degree who is ‘mistakenly’ not screened out is brought in for an interview, where he never lies about - and perhaps even openly admits - that he is actually from Flint. Nevertheless, the hiring manager who will actually be working with the candidate (as opposed to the HR staffer) along with everybody else in the office gets along swimmingly with the candidate and they decide to hire him. </p>
<p>Where’s the harm? I fail to see how anybody is getting hurt. Yet the fact remains that he would never have been interviewed at all had he not circumvented the screen erected by HR. The company and candidate found a compatible match, so what’s the problem? The only parties that might feel ‘deceived’ are the HR staffers who the candidate will never interact with anyway. </p>
<p>Now, obviously one might argue that the real problem revolves around HR’s unnecessarily silly screening rules. But let’s face it, all companies have unnecessarily silly bureaucratic rules of some sort, whether within the hiring process or elsewhere.</p>