A reader writes:

I’m currently on a hiring committee for a newly established role in my division. It’s designed for someone with a marketing background, but involves a lot of direct interaction with clients on projects. This person will manage a team within our marketing department, and it’s a relatively senior position.

We’ve had our first set of interviews, and one candidate stood out particularly in terms of her experience, practical skills, and overall demeanor. Although I can’t say that she’s unequivocally qualified over the others, it seemed pretty clear that she should be brought back for a second round. After her first interview, she received very positive feedback and seemed like an obvious choice to return.

Yesterday, however, one member of the committee mentioned that a quick Google search of her name brought up that she had been a cast member on a reality show about a decade ago. Admittedly, the show is not one remembered for its tastefulness (think along the lines of The Real World or Jersey Shore). This news seems to have soured most of the committee on her, and it doesn’t look like she’ll be brought back. They’re arguing that someone who will serve in a public and managerial role should not have this type of history, and that her atypical first name means that a client or coworker will likely remember her from the show. I’m unconvinced. I think that her qualifications are such that she should be considered, and that a qualified applicant should not be blacklisted indefinitely because they were on MTV once in their twenties.

A few are also unhappy that she left this off of her resume and didn’t bring it up to us in the first interview, which I find a bit ridiculous. It isn’t related to her professional experience, and she shouldn’t be tasked with casually bringing it up each time she’s in the running for a job.

That being said, I’m easily the most junior member of the hiring committee, so I don’t know if this is something I should spend capital on, but I feel like rejecting this candidate outright for a years-old action would be unfair to her. At the very least, she deserves to be brought back in and be asked about this part of her past. How can I advocate for her, or should I bother? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

I’m with you.

If she’s a strong candidate, she’s a strong candidate — and being on MTV 10 years ago doesn’t change that.

I’m assuming, though, that she didn’t stand out on the show for especially outrageous or bad behavior. If she did, that changes my calculation a bit, because it’s reasonable for your company not to want clients to associate it with someone known for, say, constant public drunkenness, or serious anger issues, or racism or homophobia, or generally villainous behavior.

But if this candidate was more akin to, say, Pam from Real World season 3 (my Real World knowledge is very dated) — in other words, someone who wasn’t particularly outrageous or difficult — then I can’t see how simply being on a reality show is in itself disqualifying.

And it’s particularly odd that some of your colleagues take issue with the show not being on the candidate’s resume. It doesn’t really belong on her resume — it’s not part of her professional qualifications, and if she listed it there, she’d be implying she thought it was relevant when it’s not. Similarly, there was no need for her to bring it up in the interview. If it’s something that has occasionally come up for her at work in weird ways, it might make sense for her to mention it at the offer stage — as in, “Hey, I want to make you aware that occasionally clients might recognize my name from a show I did 10 years ago” — but it’s not some obligatory first-interview disclosure. (People aren’t even expected to disclose criminal convictions in their first interviews!)

As for what you can do, I think you could say something like, “I think she’s a strong candidate, and I don’t think that her reputation on the show was one that would cause any problems with clients or staff. I’d advocate for bringing her back for the next round and asking her if it’s posed problems for her professionally, because my hunch is that it hasn’t been an issue for her or her employers.”

And if the show is more Real World than Jersey Shore, you could add, “(Show) isn’t known for being particularly scandalous, as reality TV goes. It’s had plenty of respectable cast members who have gone on to have normal careers.” (That’s what I’d say for the Real World, but adapt accordingly.)