Emily and Greg and Lakisha and Jamal
The National Bureau of Economic Research has released a very disheartening working paper.
From a summary of "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination," by Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan:
In response to help-wanted ads in Chicago and Boston newspapers, they sent resumes with either African-American- or white-sounding names and then measured the number of callbacks each resume received for interviews. Thus, they experimentally manipulated perception of race via the name on the resume. Half of the applicants were assigned African-American names that are "remarkably common" in the black population, the other half white sounding names, such as Emily Walsh or Greg Baker.
To see how the credentials of job applicants affect discrimination, the authors varied the quality of the resumes they used in response to a given ad. Higher quality applicants were given a little more labor market experience on average and fewer holes in their employment history. They were also portrayed as more likely to have an email address, to have completed some certification degree, to possess foreign language skills, or to have been awarded some honors.
In total, the authors responded to more than 1,300 employment ads in the sales, administrative support, clerical, and customer services job categories, sending out nearly 5,000 resumes. The ads covered a large spectrum of job quality, from cashier work at retail establishments and clerical work in a mailroom to office and sales management positions.
The results indicate large racial differences in callback rates to a phone line with a voice mailbox attached and a message recorded by someone of the appropriate race and gender. Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback. This would suggest either employer prejudice or employer perception that race signals lower productivity.
The study has weaknesses (e.g. it only measures callbacks rather than job offers; it relies only on newspaper ads; etc.) but it raises tough questions about fairness in American society. What's worse, any sort of near-term remedy is far from self-evident. As the authors note,
From a policy standpoint, this aspect of the findings suggests that training programs alone may not be enough to alleviate the barriers raised by discrimination, the authors write. "If African-Americans recognize how employers reward their skills, they may be rationally more reluctant than whites to even participate in these programs."
Similarly, even supporters of affirmative action will have to acknowledge that a) these results occurred in an employment system that already has affirmative action and b) if the problem is that prospective employers worry that "race signals lower productivity," those employers will work around policies designed to ameliorate racial disparities in hiring.
The paper is available at http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Similarly, even supporters of criminalizing murder will have to acknowledge that a) these results occurred in a legal system that already bans murder and b) if the problem is that prospective murderers worry that "murder in illegal," those murderers will work around policies designed to reduce murder.
How about, even opponents of affirmative action have to recognize that these results occured in an employment system that already has affirmative action. And perceived-black applicants still get screwed.
Snarky non-solution: black people could start naming their kids Madison, Dakota, Tyler, and Courtney.
A century ago immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe often changed their names to help them find work and better fit in to the society they were joining. It was a somewhat drastic step but it served the purpose.
Anyone who has ever been unemployed knows that the purpose of resumes, from the employers point of view, is to screen applicants out. I'm no fonder of race prejudice than anyone else, but if potential employers react negatively to how one presents oneself it is easier to change one's presentation than their attitudes. Changing attitudes is what one can do after one is hired.
I would bet that European-American kids named Adolph still have a hard time getting hired, or even getting a foot in the door for an interview.
Would you hire anyone named Osama?
So if you are born black, and from the ghetto, it's more difficult for you to get a job, regardless of your skills or education. Does anybody need a study to tell them that?
What's interesting to me is the address related aspect of this: people from poor neighborhoods, regardless of race, are less likely to get call backs than those from good neighborhoods.
So, sort of like having a business PO box in a swank high-rise in order to make your clients thing you are big time, get a PO box in a nice white suburb to improve your chances of getting an interview. Interesting indeed.
Econo-wunderkind Steven Levitt has also weighed in on the "Shemika vs. Sally" argument:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2003/09/if_shemekia_wer.html
Doesn't it seem likely that some of the employers saw names like "Jamal" and "Lakisha" and assumed the applicants were either noncitizens or people for whom English was not a first language?
The paper describes the names as "remarkably common". Really? I grew up in Memphis; I never once met a "Lakisha", and I only met one "Jamal". Lots of Roberts, Michelles, Susans, etc, though. Anecdotal evidence is meaningless, I realize, but I'm suspicious of the surveyors' refusal to describe how common the names are.
Dan, t he point was not to pick the names most common among black people, but to pick names that are much more common among black people than white people. Is your point that the names Jamal and Lakisha don't lead people to assume that the people are black? Good luck with that one.
So as an imigrant from Sweeden, I shouldn't have bothered to change my name from Jyuurd Butfloski to Joe Smith?
Come on, imigrants have always had to change their name, or at least the spelling to help their new culture adopt them. Is that bad? Maybe. But you don't have the right to dictate what you will be called free from any consequences. See http://www.funnynames.com for some sad pathetic dorks that need to change their names.
Is your point that the names Jamal and Lakisha don't lead people to assume that the people are black?
They would lead people to assume that they are, by their having "black pride" names, more likely to cause civil rights grief around the office, and eventually file suit through the EEOC for any perceived slights. As a potential employer, why bring on trouble unnecessarily?
I'll bet black small businessmen would be disinclined to hire them as well.
Blame not the employers, but black separatists and race-mongers such as Jesse Jackson for that.
Yes, they have no problem with black people, just the uppity ones. Some of their best frieds are black people.
When exactly did the name your mother gave you reflect your personal politics?
We see a perfect example of racism in action posted by Anon at 4:10 pm.
If one concludes that employers worry that [non-white] race signals lower productivity, does anyone think to ask "WHY?"
Is this a pure misconception on the part of employers, or a broadly generalized, but real characteristic of non-white workers?
It's like complaining that racial minorities are over-represented in prisons without considering that maybe they just commit more crimes. That might be part of what worries employers.
(Before you label me a racially prejudiced bigot, for the record, I'm a minority myself, although my name doesn't give any clues.)
When similarly named people started voting as a bloc...
Not that it isn't immoral to screen out job applicants by name. People ought to be treated as individuals.
That doesn't mean that 4:10 doesn't have a point.
The reality is, the study indicates a strong bias among employers against names that sound "too black". Is that right? Is that fair? Of course not...it sucks.
But don't you think a parent should look at this and realize that they aren't doing their kids any favors by giving them such names? I won't for a minute try to pretend that my white-middle-class-suburban upbringing doesn't severely hamper my ability to empathize here, but I'm pretty sure parents of all colors want to do right by their kids.
Well, a name like Kwanisha or Kiante is often something given by parents rather than adopted as an adult (with some exceptions, obviously). If somebody has a more "mainstream" middle name then Kwanisha Therese Smith can apply for jobs as K. Therese Smith. But if the name is Kwanisha Damina Smith, no such luck.
It's easy to say "Oh, immigrants change their names, blacks can too." Sure, legally they can. But when Chang Zhouli changes her name to Julie Chang upon arriving here, she's already left her past behind. When she applies for a job it's very unlikely that the prospective employer will find a bilingual employee to come in during odd hours (China is 16 or so hours ahead of California) and call a Chinese employer to check references.
Conversely, if Kwanisha Trefanda Miller has a good work history, changing her first name complicates things. Sure, people are accustomed to women changing their last names and immigrants changing their names upon arrival, but US citizens rarely change first names. Doing so can raise red flags as signs of a person hiding from a bad work/credit/tenant history. And the name change will make a person's GOOD work, credit, and housing history harder to trace.
So I feel sorry for people whose parents named them Kwanisha, for the same reason that I pity people whose hippy parents named them Rainbow Love Johnson.
So maybe employers don't want to hire persons with black sounding names...they may not want to hire people with names like Billy Bob either. Who cares? If I found my name may be holding me back why not just change it or use a nickname?
This reminds me of some studies Thomas Sowell commented on in _The Vision of the Anointed_. The studies purported to show that blacks were disproportionately denied credit due to racist lending policies. The evidence adduced was that blacks who had a given set of paper qualifications for a loan were less likely to get it than whites with the same set of paper qualifications.
Sowell criticized the studies in part by pointing out that blacks with that set of paper qualifications were in fact, on average, worse credit risks than the supposedly equally qualified whites. Something similar *may* be going on here. We shouldn't jump to that conclusion without further evidence-- but we also shouldn't dismiss skepticism of the study as motivated by racism.
Isn't Jamal more of a Muslim name than a typical Afro-American name? I mean, in the wake of 9/11, you think they could have picked a more Black-power sounding name like Kwame or something. Even Tariq Aziz is a fake name, in his own country for goodness sake!
I'll bet even a white guy named Jeff Fort wouldn't get many call backs in Chicago.
I don't think that it's managers that are racists. They're doing business and they recognize that Joe Business Client would rather do business with someone who fits their idea of what a professional is. I don't tell my business clients my real age because who wants to do real business with a 23yo? Likewise, who wants to do business with someone that who's name sounds unprofessional? Whether it's Taihyana Miller or Assman Miller, those names don't carry the same weight as Paul Miller. Maybe hiring managers have a responsiblity to force that change onto the working world, but I'll not be the first.
trainwreck, rather than label someone a racist, why don't you analyze their argument and show how they are wrong? There is some truth to anon's argument, am I a racist for saying that? You people (and i don't mean Blacks, i mean you people as in people who go around calling people racists) gotta quit calling people racists just because you don't agree with them. Quit being childish. If you really wanted to show anon the light of truth, you wouldn't call him names, but you would calmly point out where they are wrong.
Now to my point, I can think of five different people I know with egregiously black names, Aisha, Leki, Shawanda, Jamal and Rasheen. I might know a few others, but those are the ones that stand out. I can tell you that I would not hire one of these based on their behavior while I've known them. They are all lazy, late, and unreliable. Am I a racist? You decide, I don't believe I am, but its up to you. People with these names often have them for a reason; their parents chose to give them these names. This reflects the attitude of the people who raised this individual. Parents are the most important role model in an individual's life. There is a correlation between how a person is raised and how they perform and behave in life. That's an important point because I am not basing anything here on a person's race. My entire argument is based on how a person is raised, not the color of their skin.
Another point is that its interesting that the alleged racisim of these HR people was done without the HR people even seeing the color of the applicant's skin. How can a person be racist without knowing the victim's skin color? These HR people are likely to make their hiring decisions based on logic, not on race. I have just demonstrated that logically, people with black names are less likely to come from a professional background. Most HR people I know could care less about an applicant's race, all they want are; a) a person who will show up on time, b) someone who will work hard, c) someone who is used to a professional atmosphere. Applicants with exotic names are more of a risk for employers.
Think about a parent who would knowingly name their kid with one of these exotic names. They look at their offspring as a sort of rebellion against white society. If a parent takes this first step of using their child to protest white society, who is to say that they won't take continue teaching their children to protest white society.
The best choice of a parent of a black child is to prepare him or her to be successful in American society.
Now, I invite anyone to call me a racist, but first demonstrate where I connect a person's skin color to discrimination. I believe that we are all born equal, everything that happens after that is what forms a person's worth in society.
Working at the local jail, I met a woman with the first name Velvetta. No real point, I just thought it was funny.
How would you like to be named "Lefty" on a Libertarian site?
Re Billy Bobs:
Do this same experiment in the Northeast with candidates named Billy Bob, Johnny Ray, Sue Ellen, and so forth-- y'know, white sounding names that have a geographical signifier. See how many responses you get. I'll bet far fewer than Lakisha and co. received.
Now there are a lot of talented, smart Billy Bobs and Sue Ellens, just as there are talented, smart Jamals and Lakishas. But were the latter--as bad as they are-- the only names used in the experiment? One wonders about the educational level of parents who name their kids Dijonaise (I've seen it, swear to God) and Santonio (ditto). Ignorance of parents sadly often translates into ignorance of children. Is it racist to admit that and hire accordingly?
If that even is your real name!
I found an earlier draft of Levitt's paper on Google and it's absolutely fascinating:
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/econ/le_papers/fryer-levitt%20names.pdf
One notable result: they find that there wasn't much difference in names prior to the 70's, but over a short period of time there was a huge increase in "black" names, something they attribute to the Black Power movement.
Wow the stupidity of some of these posts...
If your name was the reason you didn't get a job interview, do you think that someone's going call you to say they don't want to interview you because of your name?
Further, this study sent applications to all types of jobs, not just professional white collar jobs that require contacts with clients.
This study was well designed. Racism exists, in all people. It affects people's lives. Admit it, realize it's wrong, and take steps to avoid judging by race.
Anon 4:10: I bet you don't have a clue as to how many frivilous civil rights complaints are turned in to the EEOC, and how such complaints are correlated (or not) with race. 4:10 is just spouting shit.
And by the way, the categories muslim and Afro-american are not mutually exclusive.
I haven't read the study, but how did they come up with "white-sounding" names? And callback to a message recorded by the appropriate race and gender? Apparently, not only are there white-sounding names, but there are black-sounding voices. Now that's racist. The name Lakisha is a "remarkedly common" African-American name? Give me a break. These are racist assumptions looking for racist outcomes. It fails the smell test of common sense. If you set out to find bigots, you're likely to conclude that you've found one.
I think certain limitations may undermine the study's conclusion. For example: "the authors responded to ads in the sales, administrative support, clerical, and customer services job categories." I would like to see a study that included technical jobs (such as programmers, systems analysts, elec engineers) as well as lawfirms, academic jobs, and government jobs.
My suspicion is that the problem identified by this study is very real but that it's magnitude is somewhat exaggerated by two factors: (1) the kind of job offers one finds in newspaper ads & (2) the greater-than-average level of race/ class discrimination in customer relations-type jobs.
I am aware of a similar study which involved job applicants w/Ivy League credentials, some white, some black, some asian. From high-tech employers, there was no significant difference in the number of call backs. In law, the black applicants received more call backs than the whites or asians. I am looking for the link.
Yeah, what Cal says.
Try "Cletus" or "Brandine"
Try "Jose" or "Juanita"
I'm just curious how they'd stack up against Jamal and Lakisha.
I'd guess that the less your name says about you, probably the better.
I personally like the name "JAMAL", it's so symmetrical.
OK, somebody suggested doing a similar study in the northeast, with fictitious resumes from people named "Billy Bob" etc. If the outcome of that study showed that "Billy Bob" is also disadvantaged in some areas, all it would show is that some people harbor irrational prejudices based on region, just as some people harbor irrational prejudices based on race. It wouldn't make the people who refuse to hire "Lakisha" any more rational.
Second, I'll be the first to grant that parents who give their kids weird names are not always very good parents. And bad parents can produce ignorant children. But if "Lakisha" has a respectable educational background and a history of increasingly responsible jobs, the implication is that "Lakisha" overcame whatever ignorance her parents might have tried to pass on. If "Lakisha" still gets turned down while somebody with identical qualifications gets a response, there is a bias based on upbringing alone.
Finally, let me lay a personal qualification on the table: I have a 100% white cousin who is ignorant and lazy. She gives her kids names akin to "Kwanisha" (I won't give the real names for reasons of privacy). I freely admit to having a bias against parents who give their kids names like that, and I put my cousin in that category. But I feel sorry for her kids, and I would have no problem hiring or working with a person who got stuck with that name if that person's resume showed a good education and work history. I'd assume that "Lakisha" rose above the circumstances of her birth.
References to "African-American" and "black pride" names like Lakisha, Shemika and Tamika make me wonder: is there anything genuinely African about them, or were they just made up because they were vaguely "African sounding"? I worked with a pregnant woman who was considering naming her daughter "Tacoma," and she was amazed to hear that it was also the name of a city.
Anon 0250:
Your proposed "solution" was foreshadowed on an episode of The Simpsons. Cletus, the stereotypical po' white cracker, called his twelve or fourteen kids by names like Rumer, Scout, Courtney, Madison, etc.
Everyone is prejudiced - whether it's against a class or green beans, we all have our preferences. Let's all try and embrace *that*. And please note that I didn't say "racist".
I happen to suffer from employer prejudice by not having a degree. It means I have to work much harder to get an interview, and only then will my oh-so-obvious erudition be noted and considered. Until then, I may as well be named Lakisha. (Mind you, if Lakisha wants a good job all she needs to do is come to Georgia where racism is spinning round as the power is being wielded by the black population.) However, my lack of degree was my choice - not a good one, but so it stands. The same thing goes for a person who retains a name that has any overtone they think may harm their chances for advancement in the world.
We are all hobbled in one way or another. Middle class whites don't have the connections that wealthy whites do. Poor Hispanics have a language barrier. Etc., ad nauseum. The trick is to learn to deal with it, change what you can and fight to get what you deserve.
But...do we now get to step delicately into the fray of the right of the employer to hire and fire whomever they damned well please? (Yes, it's something that I wholly support...)
Another anon at 4:53. You are a racist.
The point of the study is the perception of race. There's no need for someone to see the other person's skin color to act in a manner that can be defined as racist.
Logically black people in general are less likely to come from a professional background. You didn't "logically demonstrate" anything.
In the study, a white name generated the same callback frequency as a black name with eight years more experience. I'll translate that in to language you can understand:
This study shows that even when people who are perceived to be black have the same or better qualifications as whites (i.e. are used to "professional settings", have a track record of showing up on time, and doing hard work), they find less opportunity in the workplace.
Why are people so resistant to admitting racism exists among all of us?
Several folks have suggested that a rememdy for the discrimination suggested by the study would be for applicants to change their names. So that means these African-American job seekers would have a better shot at scheduling an interview with employers who wouldn't bother to give them an appointment if they knew in advance the applicant was black. I'm sure that would be an empowering experience.
LauraN-
One can support an employer's right to make his/her own hire/fire decisions and still be disappointed that people choose to make those decisions on the basis of a name rather than other qualifications. Just as one can support the right to free speech and be disappointed that some people use it to say stupid things.
This study can be interesting (and disappointing) without leading to the automatic conclusion that coercive measures are needed to remedy the problem. Although most people who like to point out the existence of racism call for coercive legal measures to remedy it, one who opposes coercive measures can still be interested in and disappointed by studies suggesting the degree to which racism persists in certain areas of society.
(Yes, I realize it's a no-brainer that some amount of racism will always exist. That's why I said "the degree to which racism persists in certain areas of society.")
The Simpsons' "Cletus" reference reminds me of the reason my dad didn't like the show.
He said (paraphrasing): This show makes fun of every ethnic group but blacks. Pussies!
Why would a black person want to work for racists?
But what about Bharat & Lajwanti?
Before attributing the disparate response rates to base racial discrimination, it would be worth investigating the very plausible possibility that some prospective employers may be responding to name familiarity rather than racial cues -- perhaps quite subconsciously, in the manner of brand selection.
An obvious way to at least partially control for this possibility (assuming the study at issue did not; I haven't read it yet) would be to include additional comparison groups consisting of various other ethnic-sounding names suggesting a job candidates' Asian, Arabic, Eastern European or other ethnic/racial/national identification. A group of completely made-up names like "Varboo" and "Zxlyntia" should probably be included as well.
Measuring the results for the African-American-named applicant group against other "less familiar"-named control groups would provide a better gauge of just how significant a role pre-emptive racial discrimination plays here -- and against which groups.
Could it be that many HR people can tell bullshit resumes when they ee them? The disgusting part isn't that the fake black candidates were screened better, it's that the fake white candidates weren't.
Dan, the point was not to pick the names most common among black people, but to pick names that are much more common among black people than white people.
I'm betting that the names "Malcolm" and "Martin" are more common among blacks than whites -- so why not use those? "Lakisha" isn't a "black name" -- it's a "weird-ass made-up name". Aversion to "Lakishas" is an example of xenophobia, not racism. 🙂
The so-called "white" name, "Emily", was the #1 most popular name for American baby girls in 2002. The researchers are comparing the ultra-common to the ultra-rare, and trying to spin the whole thing as a racial issue.
Is your point that the names Jamal and Lakisha don't lead people to assume that the people are black? Good luck with that one.
Why would I assume a person with a name like "Lakisha" is black? I've never met or heard of a black person, or a person of any other color, with that name. Prior to reading this "study" I'd never heard it identified as a "black" name. Frankly I have only the researchers' word that anybody has that name at all. 🙂
As for "Jamal" -- I'd assume a person named "Jamal" (eg, ) was Arab, not black. It's an Arabic name, after all. The only famous black "Jamal" names that springs to mind is Mumia Abu-Jamal. I suppose all "Jamals" suffer from a bit of a negative association with a famous murderer, but I doubt it has a huge impact.
Trainwreck - have you ever been involved in the real world? Have you worked with black people, or gone to school with blacks? They are just a drag on productivity, in general. This is not racist, because it has nothing to do with race - it has everything to do with culture, affirmative action, welfare, the black power movement, etc. And if you really want to screw up your company, why not hire the son or daughter of some white-hating, rah rah Africa moron? And besides that, maybe people were assuming that Latishikablikdikado was lying on her resume about the 8 years of experience...
Yes, they have no problem with black people, just the uppity ones.
Who the hell wants to hire "uppity" people of *any* race? People with chips on their shoulders make shitty coworkers and worse employees. The best coworkers are those who realize that nobody owes them a damned thing -- the ones who want to be judged for the work they do.
Well, I think some of the comments here (including my own comments on my cousin who gives her kids made-up names) are proving an important point:
Certain names carry negative stereotypes. They range from sneering (poor kid must have a lousy parent) to downright racist ("Have you worked with black people, or gone to school with blacks? They are just a drag on productivity, in general.").
This study just affirms that the negative stereotypes apparently influence managers deciding whom to interview for jobs. Whatever the origin of these stereotypes, it's clear that a generation of kids named Kiante and Kwanisha are going to face some obstacles that Emily and Greg won't face, even if Emily and Greg grew up in otherwise identical circumstances.
Ironically, the comments most in keeping with the results of the study tend to come from people most skeptical of the study.
But some good points have been made: What if the names were associated with some other ethnicity (Arab, Asian, etc.) or region (e.g. Southern US)? These are questions worth asking.
Trainwreck, you are going for the ad hominen again, calling me a racist won't persuade me to adjust my opinions or beliefs. If you're going to disagree with me, don't attack me, I am perfectly willing to change my opinions if you can demonstrate where I am wrong. Now please, let me ask again, demonstrate where exactly I've crossed the lines of calling a duck a duck and became a racist.
In addition, if we accept your premise that this is an example of racism in society, so what? There is nothing that can fix this situation outside of government force. If Lakisha feels that she is being discriminated because she has a black name, then she should change her name, otherwise accept the consequences. If your premise is true, then yes, it is sad and regrettable, but there is NO SOLUTION. The worst course of action for Lakisha is to embrace this martyrdom, that will fix nothing and only make her more miserable.
Well, it's $5.00 to buy the study, so I'll just critique one more point from the summary digest, as it states:
"Despite laws against discrimination, affirmative action, a degree of employer enlightenment, and the desire by some businesses to enhance profits by hiring those most qualified regardless of race, African-Americans are twice as likely as whites to be unemployed and they earn nearly 25 percent less when they are employed."
Stated altenatively:
Despite affirmative action, employer enlightenment, the desire of business to hire the most qualified, we found differences in rates of employment and income as between blacks and whites. Ergo: racial discrimination.
If the social scientists conducting this survey controlled for age, education, years of workforce experience, and marital status, they will uncover the uncomfortable fact that the differences are almost entirely explained by the control variables, and have nothing to do with racial discrimination in employment practices (not that there is no discrimination anywhere, but that what is measurable across the population is easily explained). Nearly the same results are uncovered when male v. female wages are compared, though that doesn't stop the feminist mantra: equal pay for equal work.
As I stated earlier, if you go looking for discrimination, you'll likely find it. In this case, they didn't set out to explain differences in rates of employment and income, they set out to find discrimination.
Would it be racist to avoid hiring a black salesperson because you think (or know?) there are racists out there who will not buy your products from a black salesperson?
go to germany and send out a cv with a turkish name. that would do well. or do that "middle eastern" thing in epsewhere in europe, yes, even our beloved, do no wrong france.
just because "that's the way it is", doesn't mean that some of these conventions, i.e., being suspicious on someone's name, shouldn't be challenged.
when looking at resumes, there are usually tons of other, experience-based reasons to reject someone... take a few seconds and not fall into PJ O Rourke's laziness trap (prejudicism shows lack of willingness to discover the concrete reasons to hate the individual.)
now, Lefty, you are hereby dubbed "RandyMoss". you will also apply to become a driving school instructor.
"I don't think that it's managers that are racists. They're doing business and they recognize that Joe Business Client would rather do business with someone who fits their idea of what a professional is."
"Their idea of what a professional is," when it excludes black people (or people who are "too black") is the problem.
As for Tuttle and many others: I haven't seen acrobatics like that since the Olympics. You people should apply to Cirque de Soleil as contortionists.
My faves: "all they have to do is change their name." Oh, is that all? Any of you ever been compelled to change your name? Think it's fun? Easy? Maybe just a little bit uncomfortable and humiliating?
"They were able to spot the fake black resumes." But not the fake white ones, who they called back. Wonder why.
"Why would a black person want to work for racists?" Um, to pay the rent?
"Why would I assume a person with a name like "Lakisha" is black?" How about, because you have a passing familiarity with American culture?
The mother of a very good friend of mine is a nurse in a doctor's office in Philadelphia. One woman came into the office and filled out the form and handed it in. My friend's mother looked at the form and burst out laughing. She called into the waiting room, "Shithead Watson, Shithead Watson, the doctor will see you now." The entire place was aghast until the woman stood up indignant and said, "My name is shy-THEED!"
Unfortunately, Reader's Digest didn't think that one was as funny as I did. I could have used the $400.
- Josh
Two basic questions to everyone on this thread: How many of you have ever actually worked in Human Resources? How many of you have ever been involved in the hiring process?
As someone who really has been hiring (and firing) people for many years, allow me to point out some potential problems in this study. First: how do we know these resumes were consistently appropriate to the positions? A corollary to this, the so-called "higher quality" resumes; were they higher quality in relation to the advertised position? Quite honestly, I couldn't possibly care less about school honors or foreign language ability: neither attribute impresses my union workforce favorably.
Second: every company I have worked for as a manager would turn cartwheels to hire a qualified black female (aka twofer).
Third: the number of companies who bother to call back people who do nothing other than submit resumes is tiny. Generally speaking, if you want an interview, you need to give me a follow-up call. If all I get is a resume, it goes straight into the "U.S. Dept. of Labor Required" file. I would guess a large proportion of those "positions" were not quite as advertised. You know, the "Make $2,000 a week to start!" type of ad. That might actually indicate the advertisers think blacks are *smarter* than whites.
I hesitate to cast aspersions on people whom I have never met, however this study does not match my real world experience. I suspect that the researchers went looking for bias, and found what they wanted to find. I would note (for what its worth) that the authors also published "Are CEO's Lucky? The Ones Without Principals [sic] Are." I haven't read that, but the title hardly gives the impression of being "fair and balanced(TM)".
The last commentor made some excellent points. My big question about this study is: who in the hell EVER got a call-back when applying for a job through a newspaper ad? I was always taught that any company seeking workers through the help-wanted section was one you should avoid like the plague. Of course, I didn't learn that until after a couple of years of applying for jobs through want-ads and NEVER getting a call-back.
My name dropped me 10 spots in the draft and cost me a bunch of money. Then it got me all over the news for slow-motion assault on a traffic cop.
Wish I woulda been named Lefty.
The most disturbing thing I've seen on this thread has been this strange idea that if you're a Libertarian, you should throw your hands up in the air and let people work their way around racism themselves. Since we can't support gov't regulations to mediate the affects of racism, should we just do nothing but "let the market fix it" automatically?... well, that would be just peachy-keen:)
But even we "true" Libertarians can be pissed off that our society still suffers from a great deal of racism and try to work against. A free society can't rise above the quality of its citizens; good people are just as important as good politics if we want to be prosperous. Racism like that which is indicated in this study doesn't indicate good people.
Not that I have some great plan for lessening racism, but I do see it as a major problem.
Glenn C-
For the most part I defer to your experience. But for every good reason you give why resumes might be rejected, you don't explain why those same factors didn't cause resumes with "white" names don't get rejected. If the managers were applying unbiased criteria then it would imply that the researchers were sloppy and consistently sent out resumes that were ill-suited to the job listing when the name at the top was "black."
However, if the researchers were even the tiniest bit thorough they designed the resume and designated it for a particular job listing BEFORE randomly assigning a "racial name" to it. If they were even slightly more thorough then they retained somebody like Glenn C as a consultant, to make sure that the resumes were all suited to the job listings.
Since I don't have the original research article in front of me I don't know if they did this, but if the researchers had even the slightest amount of intelligence they did those things.
However, Glenn's point about black women being highly desired as employees is a good one. Although I'm currently in grad school, in my past interactions with employers I've noticed that human resources and PR departments often have disproportionate numbers of black women. So that makes these findings more enigmatic.
Andy-
Good point. Just because we don't think a problem should be solved by regulation, that doesn't mean we must also think the problem isn't really a problem. Unfortunately, some self-described libertarians seem to think that indifference toward racism is the only appropriate stance for somebody who thinks gov't regulation is a bad way to solve it.
And Amen! to your comment that "A free society can't rise above the quality of its citizens"!
Colin-
I don't know that anybody here is saying you should be legally barred from making a decision based on that stereotype. I think the general point of the study was to demonstrate that a good, decent, hard-working person named Lakisha Washington would have an undeserved disadvantage when applying for jobs. I'm not saying everything in life has to be fair, nor am I suggesting any remedy (coercive or otherwise), but I see nothing wrong with trying to quantify the extent to which certain stereotypes (deserved or otherwise) influence hiring decisions.
Finally, why is this thread so full of defenses of racism? I thought libertarians were open-minded, freedom-oriented people who believe in individual liberty. A forward-thinking freedom-oriented individual can lament a phenomenon without calling for a coercive remedy. Why are so many here eager to rationalize racism? Rationalizing racism is very different from opposing coercive remedies.
Thoreau - the point is that it is not racism when it is true.
Is no one else wondering how many of these resumes weren't even looked at by actual people aka computers? Or if the companies even look at all the resumes that are received? Perhaps the study planners should have contacted each ad employer after the fact to find out these details. Or how many were sent my mail, email, fax? Is there a better chance of callback period if the ad asks for a fax or an email?
Y'know, I was going to parody PLC's post, but I just can't figure out how to one would go about that.
How's this: there really are a lot of Jewish people in Hollywood. See, Jews control the media.
Nope, still not there.
Hey Joe, how 'bout this - I've known a lot of Jews. Every one of them was a cheap bastard.
Personally, I love the bit that mentions how this study says "something" about fairness in America. Who the hell said life was supposed to be fair? Of course there are racist bigots out there. But there are good people, too. All we can hope for is that we encounter more good than bad in our lives. Stop crying about it and get on with your life for Christ's sake.
Ah, so if blacks really are inferior then it isn't racism. And of course it's not a matter of genetics or anything, just a matter of culture. The way they live you can't trust those people. If they would just be like us white folk it would all be fine.
OK, got it.
So much for "free minds and free markets." More like "closed minds and closed markets."
Hey Lefty, at least you have a better than average shot of making a major league babeball team's pitching staff.
The actual study (not just a summary) is posted at
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf
I didn't read the entire thing thoroughly, but I skimmed enough of it to notice that many (although certainly not all) of the "what-if's" or "if they just looked at this" points raised here were addressed in the study. In the conclusions, the authors use some important qualifiers: "This paper suggests that..." and "Taken at face value our results..." The authors never claim to have the final word, and they check many alternative explanations.
I notice that whenever a study comes out people here tend to assume that the authors were idiots who never thought to check alternative explanations or report statistical margins of error. More often it's the journalists reporting on the study who fail to exercise caution.
So, thoreau - what is your explanation for the disproportionate percentage of violent crimes commited by black people? How about answering why such a huge percentage of black children live in single parent homes? Why are poor urban blacks so much more violent, poorly educated, and less likely to advance than poor urban non-black minorities or whites?
It may not be pleasant, but the reality is that black "culture" in America is a total mess. If you're going to pretend that this isn't so, and that it doesn't impact the black people raised in that culture, then you are the one with the closed mind.
Mo: Only if he really is a lefty. Not like the golfer known as Lefty who IS a lefty but throws righty, so isn't a baseball lefty, which doesn't seem right, wait a minute. I left something out, right? I gotta get more sleep.
A black person who commits a crime, fathers a bunch of kids by different women (just as one of my 100% white cousins did) or does some other bad thing is certainly a problem, and I'm not denying it.
But when you get a resume from a Lakisha Washington, and she's gone to college and held a series of increasingly responsible jobs suited to the position being advertised, it's pretty clear that Lakisha Johnson, despite the negative connotations of her name, is not part of the problem. To not call her back, but still call a person with a more "white" name and comparable qualifications , is a sign of a closed mind. It implies that Lakisha Washington was viewed unfavorably solely due to stereotypes concerning her name, even though her education and work history is inconsistent with that stereotype.
The whole point of the study was that they sent good resumes, indicating a past incompatible with the stereotype, but the stereotype associated with the name nonetheless lowered a person's chances of getting a call from prospective employers. THAT is a sign of a closed mind.
oops, interchanged the last names "Washington" and "Johnson" a few times in that post. If somebody fails to call me back because I was sloppy I'll totally understand 😉
When I get a resume from a Lakisha Washington, and she's gone to college and held a series of increasingly responsible jobs suited to the position being advertised, it's pretty clear that Lakisha Washington has benefitted from Affirmative Action.
I attending some of the best schools in the country, and while I thought that most of the white kids were morons I found that every single black kid I met did not merit entry into that school. They just were not as smart as the white kids. This is a direct and predictable result of Affirmative Action.
As for "Jamal" -- I'd assume a person named "Jamal" (eg, ) was Arab, not black. It's an Arabic name, after all. The only famous black "Jamal" names that springs to mind is Mumia Abu-Jamal. I suppose all "Jamals" suffer from a bit of a negative association with a famous murderer, but I doubt it has a huge impact.
Just as a point of information, there are a number of professional athletes named "Jamal" (Jamal Anderson, Jamal Mashburn, Jamal Lewis), and they are pretty much all black.
So, thoreau - what is your explanation for the disproportionate percentage of violent crimes commited by black people? How about answering why such a huge percentage of black children live in single parent homes? Why are poor urban blacks so much more violent, poorly educated, and less likely to advance than poor urban non-black minorities or whites?
Well, maybe they're less likely to advance because of racism. And maybe they're more likely to commit crimes because they live in a society that closes off other opportunities for material gain to them based on the color of the race. And maybe they're less likely to pursue education because they live in a society that denies them the benefits of that education, simply because of their race.
Those are just some possibilities.
OK, PLC, I won't doubt that some unqualified black people have attended good schools and gotten good jobs because of affirmative action. But if you simply assume that ANY black person you encounter with a degree from a good school or resume listing good jobs is an unqualified affirmative action recipient, isn't that closed-minded?
Or is it only people with names like Lakisha and degrees from good schools whom you assume are unqualified affirmative action recipients (i.e. a subset of all blacks)? If so, I won't deny that some of the parents who give their children unconventional names might have problems, but I don't judge children by their parents. If people knew my father's story, and they judged me according to him, I'd probably change my name to Trevan Washington just to cover up my real background 😉
But anyway, even if you only assume that a certain subset of blacks are unqualified recipients of affirmative action, that's still pretty closed-minded if the subset is defined solely by name. Don't judge a person by his parents, especially if that person has a good track record as an adult.
"I attending some of the best schools in the country"
Ha Ha!
Blogician - your explanation does not fly. Back in the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s there was vastly more racism and vastly fewer opportunities for advancement, yet black families did not have markedly higher rates of divorce, nor did black people commit more crimes. Hmmmm.... what could it have been that destroyed black culture? Here's a hint - it really is racism, but not the kind you're thinking of...
I just had a thought:
I've noticed that older black men sometimes have quite impressive names (e.g. Earl Ulysses Washington III). And sometimes you'll run across younger blacks with similar names (e.g. his grandson Earl Ulysses Washington V). I wonder how employers would respond to a resume with such a name at the top if the qualifications were matched to the job. Doing a study with such names might elucidate whether the bias is purely racial (i.e. Mr. Earl Ulysses Washington V fares just as poorly as Kiante Washington) or at least partially based on a perception of culture (i.e. Mr. Earl Ulysses Washington V fares better than Kiante Washington).
Rats.
I guess even for a genious such as myself, it is difficult to pretend to work productively for ridiculous sums of money while also typing trolls into silly blogs sans grammatical error....
Don't bother, thoreau. Non-racist readers already know you're right. Racist readers aren't going to have thier minds changed by reason - after all, they didn't get there by reason. Just a reminder of who you're addressing:
"When I get a resume from a Lakisha Washington, and she's gone to college and held a series of increasingly responsible jobs suited to the position being advertised, it's pretty clear that Lakisha Washington has benefitted from Affirmative Action."
Not even a "probably."
Why bother?
Good point, Joe.
I wonder how a web site supposedly devoted to "free minds and free markets" attracts racists.
"Hmmmm.... what could it have been that destroyed black culture?"
Urban renewal, urban highways, public housing highrises, flight of manufacturing jobs from cities, redlining, blockbusting...
You're right about there being more than one kind of racism.
'I wonder how a web site supposedly devoted to "free minds and free markets" attracts racists.'
Because the Republicans are too soft on those Welfare Queens?
The actual study is described in detail here.
Here is the actual ranking of callbacks, from most to least:
Kristen, Carrie, Laurie, Meredith, Ebony, Sarah, Allison, Jill, Latonya, Kenya, Anne, Latoya, Emily, Tanisha, Lakisha, Tamika, Keisha, Aisha
"Ebony" beat "Sarah", "Allison", and "Jill".
"Latonya" and "Kenya" beat "Anne".
"Latoya" beat "Emily".
Anyone who looks at a study where an "Ebony" and "Latonya" have better job prospects than "Allison" and "Anne" and concludes that there is RACIAL discrimination in hiring, is an idiot. The five "loser" names -- Tanisha through Aisha -- are both (a) incredibly rare and (b) obviously invented. These names are discriminated against because they're associated with trashy backgrounds, like "Billie-Jean", or "Joe-Bob", or "Moon Unit" -- not because they are "black".
Most people are just not capable of dealing with hundreds of individuals as individuals; they will group them in categories on the basis of available knowledge. Some people may categorize people more effectively than others, but the categorization process will always exist.
The first step to dealing with racism is to recognize that our society is a heterogenous one... with multiple 'sub-cultures' composing it. (and that diversity is not necessarily a bad thing) these 'sub-cultures' really do have non-superficial differences; the issue is not just one of perception. That is to say... there is some benefit to conceptually grouping people according to culture.
This isn't the only way you might choose to think broadly of people... age, gender, politics, or occupation all are also useful categories as well. The solution to racism is to provide a 'more useful' way to group people conceptually, and to do so in situations of limited knowledge. The primary effect of 'Affirmative Action' has been is instill a sense of personal experience into the judgement process.
People do not have unlimited time or energy. They aren't going to get to know each potential candidate in the depth that each 'requires' to be 'fairly' judged. They are going to focus their efforts to be as productive as possible. When people are *only* given a name along to help distinguish between people, of course they are going to use that. Culture is one of the few 'useful' pieces of information that a name might convey... so the results of the study come as no surprise.
Finally, somebody argues against me with data rather than racist diatribes like "When I get a resume from a Lakisha Washington, and she's gone to college and held a series of increasingly responsible jobs suited to the position being advertised, it's pretty clear that Lakisha Washington has benefitted from Affirmative Action."
Dan's use of data means I'll have to reconsider the conclusions I drew from my cursory examination of the study.
However, I still find some of the other posts here very interesting. Some of the other posters accepted the summary of the results just as I did, concluded that blacks are discriminated against just as I did, and then argued that racial discrimination is very reasonable, so the discrimination isn't anything to be upset about. Dan just said "Um, looks like the evidence of discrimination is somewhat ambiguous."
Dan,
In 2002, it was more common to name one's daughter Aisha than to name her Carrie or Ebony. Why is it so obvious that Aisha was "made-up"? Aisha was one of Muhammad's wives and I believe is a rather respected figure in Islam.
I actually find it odd that this name would do worse than other less common names with less historical significance.
I wish there were other uncommon, difficult-to-spell/pronounce names on there (not that Latoya or Aisha or Tamika are really difficult to spell or pronounce--but I'm sure some people find them that way) that were not so obviously "black."
"When people are *only* given a name along to help distinguish between people, of course they are going to use that."
They were also given a resume, listing the applicants skills, education, and work experience.
>>
uh, i got my last two jobs (the first in design for a wall st. company, the current one in PR for an area hospital) from ads in the village voice and the new york times, respectively.
on an interesting note, i am the first male who has worked in this department in two years and change (out of 30 people). my resume stuck out because it was one of the few offered by male applicants - and more importantly, was actually qualified and had specific experience for the position. all this resume clusterbombing that goes on nowadays was always a big red flag in my old position, where i ended up hiring (and firing) interns. we'd get resumes from MBAs, etc... nuttiness.
err, there's probably a point in there. productivity drags tend to be a diverse population (i.e. most of the workforce) imo.
The whole point of a market is to discriminate. Most people don't like to admit that. What the hell is the voting process? "Here's your list of candidates for each of the 100 offices. You must vote for at least 3 colored (i.e. people of color) candidates."
If Leroy is too stupid to realize that naming his daughter "Tamika" might be a hinderance in the market, there's nothing I care do about it. Maybe Leroy would have known that if he wasn't fed a bunch of stupid bullshit in public school.
Here's another thing: people lie on their resumes. Happens all the time. In this case, all the resumes were bullshit. So there is no proof of anything since the whole thing was dishonest from the get go.
"They were also given a resume, listing the applicants skills, education, and work experience."
Right... but all the resumes were qualified to do the job, as such had little to distinguish them; there just is not a huge skill set needed to be a sales clerk or work in the mail room. Things like a good work ethic are going to be relatively more important... and that is related to culture. (also remember we are taking the difference between a 90% and a 93% flush rate... these aren't great odds in either case.)
and like it or not... if you have a name like 'Ari Steinfeld', 'Tam Nguyen', 'Ramesh Banerji' or 'Lakisha Johnson'... people *are* going to associate you into a pre-existing conceptual grouping. They'll do it because most people can't keep track of hundreds of individual unrelated things. That is... its useful, and its more accurate than not. and given the increasing level of integration in society, these conceptual groupings are done more and more on the basis of experience, rather than ignorance.
Prejudice informed by personal experience is the current 'race issue' facing the US; not judgement based on superficial physical characteristics, but that based on all the baggage that comes with a culture (such values and work ethics.) Its not the same civil rights issue that were faced in the 1960s; the world has changed since then, and its time the 'racial rhetoric' did too.
"if you have a name like 'Ari Steinfeld', 'Tam Nguyen', 'Ramesh Banerji' or 'Lakisha Johnson'... people *are* going to associate you into a pre-existing conceptual grouping."
Of course they are. The problem is that Lakisha is consistently put into the "lazy, stupid, flippant, criminal, bad hire" conceptual group based on here race. You're defending that?
Anon 453: look, my only point in name calling is to get people to recognize that we all have these biases. You assume that all people who name their children differently than you would are protesting white society, that they're all Black Panthers in the making.
So what about the results? So it's worth being aware of. It's worth knowing, for example, that the pipefitters union I used to belong to, as an unwritten policy, didn't allow blacks or women to become members. "Don't want niggers and women taking our jobs" was the statement I heard. Some of the best working class jobs available were not available to all. It's worth reminding people that it's barely been a generation since such discriminatory practices were routine. It helps you understand why blacks tend to have less education, income, assets, etc. when you realize that they were discriminated against, and continue to be discriminated against. It's not about whining, it's about living in this society with your eyes wide open.
Joe-
People seem to be consistently missing out points: The only substantial difference between resumes was the name of the person. Apparently a large number of people with hiring authority don't want to hire somebody named Tamika.
And even if the name Kwanisha says something bad about the parents (and based on my experience with my cousin I'd say it does) it says nothing about the person unlucky enough to get that name. If people judged me by my father's character, well, I'd be up a creek that would make even Lakisha Washington's situation look easy.
On top of the other flaws discussed, another major issue with the study is it doesn't tell us anything about the TREND. That is, perhaps 20 years ago, a black person had to submit 100 resumes to get a call back. Perhaps we should be thrilled thats its only 15 now, and we are approaching parity.
As others have mentioned, I also suspect the (claimed) bias against those names is only partially explained by racism. Having grown up in a racially diverse neighborhood and attended a very integrated elementary and Jr High, those names DO ring true as "black" to me. What pops in my brain, however, even more powerfully than "black" is "what a fucking idiotic name". I'd be equally biased against resumes with names like "Bocephus", "Billy Bob", and "Bobby Joe". As a southerner, I can say that my perceived IQ by northerners drops by 50 points the minute I "talk southern". So, consider a person's resume a mini-IQ test. If there dumb enough to use an idiotic name (rather than an initial or nickname) maybe they aren't smart enough to work at your company. Certainly not in the Marketing department anyway.
The perceived class or ethnic background associated with a name definitely varies among locations.
On the east coast, people place me more or less correctly: Russian immigrant/White Russian background. In the midwest, my name is invariably misspelled and associated with lower-class bimbohood. Can't win.
Of course, I imagine the flip side as well: can you imagine someone called John Lowell Cabot III getting hired for a working-class job anywhere?
A hint to all the "Billy Bob's" and "Bobby Joe's" out there: Fill out your apps as "William Robert" and "Robert Joseph."
There is also the white-folks phenomenon of trying to give the kids ethnically-authentic names. (Or ones that seem to be authentic.) My parents, Irish-Americans, gave me a typical I-A name, Kevin. Every other I-A boy born in the mid-fifties seems to have been given a name like that: Kevin, Brian, Brendan, etc. I am told that they considered "Kerry," which is both an Irish surname, and an Irish placename. They were talked out of it by their priest, who pointed out that their church preferred that children be given saints' names. Ten years later, this sort of pressure stopped convincing parents, as I-A kids started getting non-saint names such as Ryan, Kelly and Colleen. Had I been born even later, I might have been named Caomhain or Coemgen, which are Irish Gaeilge (Gaelic) forms of the same name. Immigrants named Seamus told "Americans" to call them "Jim", and named their kids "John" rather than "Sean." Johnny grows up, and instead of naming his daughter "Kathleen," calls her "Caitlin." Rory, Conor, Kennedy, Colin - all names that used to mark one as a "greenhorn" were retired for a generation or two, then came back in a big way. They became so popular that they were adopted by the culture at large. Of course, "Aileen Kulakowski" may have an I-A mom and a Polish-American Dad, but plenty of people with no Irish or Scots background are using those names. My favorite is rap star Puffy/P. Diddy, aka Sean John Combs. Did his Mom KNOW that "Sean" means John?
Sometimes names cross race. If I mentioned someone named "Tyrone," would you think of a white or a black person? Tyrone is an Irish placename, and famous folk such as Tyrone Power made it prominent. It went out of fashion for whites well before it did so for blacks.
I have a brother who can't stand his very Irish first name. He moved to a state where such names were either uncommom, except that a local sports star used a variant spelling. He got so sick of correcting people that he started going by his much more conventional middle name. The sports star was African-American, so "Mike" often surprised clients who didn't know he was white!
Kevin
(who admits, it could be kinda cool to be named "Turlough".)
H.L. Mencken in The American Language remarked on the fanicful names Okies gave their kids. His point was that when you don't have much to pass on to your offspring, you make the best of it, and a lavish name might be your best gift. Many people like made-up names--there a couple of websites devoted to "Mormon" names, mnay of which are the same as inner city names. (I know a white girl names Aquanetta).
But how would Jamal stack up against Floyd? Or Lakisha against Thelma or Mabel? Ugly-sounding, old-fashioned names mark their bearer as much as any tribute to the characters in Roots. Both sets should just use initials if they're worried about a negative reaction to the full names.
Kevin--where do you think the name "Tacoma" came from?
Kevrob,
I always wondered why the Irish were called niggers, now I've learned a bit. Thanks.
"The problem is that Lakisha is consistently put into the "lazy, stupid, flippant, criminal, bad hire" conceptual group based on here race. You're defending that?"
That depends on whether or not its true, doesn't it? (It doesn't even require 100% accuracy, just to be somewhat more true than not.)
Lets say relative to the Tam Nguyen's of the world who are "Quiet, Respectful, and Hard Working", the Lakisha Johnson's in my personal experience happen to be "Loud, Sassy, and Lazy".
Given that I am looking to fill a position, have limited time and resources to do so, and a surfeit of applicants (of who I am going to speak to less than 1 in 10.) Is it surprising that I would start looking at the pool of applicants that, based on personal experience, I have reason to believe will make the better employee?
Obviously, value judgements are being made (and based on extremely limited information!), but the hiring process is fundamentally a judgemental process.
Now... where exactly do you see the problem:
(a) Is it that I feel my personal experience is valid?
(b) That I am using that experience to assist in decision making?
(c) That I am looking to make a decision in a limited period of time, and based on limited information, rather than the 'best possible' decision based upon resources that I do not have available?
Colin-
I don't think anybody here denies that American blacks have some problems to solve. And I suppose, for the sake of argument, that if the only information on two applicants was their names, then statistically the application of a stereotype might make sense.
But when you have more information on an applicant (e.g. good education and work history that are suited to the job) it should be clear that the Lakisha applying for the job is not stupid, lazy, or a criminal. If people nonetheless operate on the assumption that Lakisha is statistically more likely to be a criminal knowing full well her educational and career history and in the meantime consider hiring a person with a more "white" name and comparable qualifications, that is a clear sign of ignorance.
In reply to the anonymous jerk posting at 12:45 p.m.:
I'd rather stand with the people labelled n_____ than with those who sling that term around.
No surprise that you didn't sign your post.
Kevin
"Some of the other posters accepted the summary of the results just as I did, concluded that blacks are discriminated against just as I did, and then argued that racial discrimination is very reasonable, so the discrimination isn't anything to be upset about." -thoreau
Eaxactly so... why do people who are so concerned about racism do so much to perpetuate the problems... rather than trying to address what the issue really is?
The discrimination *isn't* anything to be upset about; the circumstances that lead to that discrimination are. Given the way the world is... the discrimination is rational, reasonable, and realistic. (and I would assert not primarily 'racial' either; black african, black caribbean, black latin american, black US veterans, are all viewed in a different, and more positive, light than black americans generally. "Lakisha Washington" would fair as poorly against "Lakisha Amatokwu". The language used in descirbing the problem as 'racism' is in itself misleading.)
Let me reiterate that again: The circumstances that lead to 'negative sterotyping' are something that is worth getting upset about. Increasing literacy and education, reducing the economic incentives of the drug trade, encouraging investment in urban areas... those are all ways to address the issue. Change the culture from one that glamorizes hustlers and players to one that respects doctors and programmers... how to do that is worth worrying about.
but as for the discrimination, you still haven't convinced me why this is even a problem. I'm a young guy, don't live in the US... its certainly by no means clear why you should be so obsessed about this. why are you? it seems you'd be better focusing on the causes, rather than the consequences.
In 2002, it was more common to name one's daughter Aisha than to name her Carrie or Ebony
This would be interesting if newborns commonly applied for jobs. In the 1968-1974 period, "Ebony" was the most popular "unusual" name among newborn black women. These women were 28 to 34 years old -- ie, the age range of jobs seekers -- when the survey was conducted. Aisha wasn't even in the top 100 in 1974.
How about... Four of the top five names are white names. Five of the bottom five names are black names.
There's no such thing as a "white name". There are no names commonly used by whites that are not also commonly used by blacks. Hell, one of the most popular names for black girls is "Tiffany" -- was there ever a "whiter" name than that?
Four of the top five names are common names. Five of the bottom five are invented names. That's the reason for the discrimination. Invented names, whether "Billy-Bob" or "Anfernee" or "Rainbow Moonbeam", have a bad rep. People like normal things and dislike weird things.
No matter how much bullshit you attempt to pile on top of the simple facts here, you'll be unable to obscure the simple fact that names like "Ebony" and "Kenya" -- flagrantly "black" names that have the virtue of being (a) real words and (b) in English -- did just as well as some of the lily-whitest names imaginable. There is no evidence whatsoever for racism here. 🙂
This would be interesting if newborns commonly applied for jobs. In the 1968-1974 period, "Ebony" was the most popular "unusual" name among newborn black women. These women were 28 to 34 years old -- ie, the age range of jobs seekers -- when the survey was conducted. Aisha wasn't even in the top 100 in 1974.
Top 100 of "unusual" black names or all names? The Top 100 of all names doesn't include quite a lot of relatively common names.
I'm also not sure where you're getting your #'s from, but if you look at the entire decade of the 1970's (not sure where to find annual data), Latoya, Latonya, Keisha and Tamika were all more popular than Ebony. Aisha, Tanisha and Kenya were below Ebony and all of those names, but ahead of some relatively ordinary-sounding ones like Beatrice, Edith, Lucy, Hillary, etc. And that's not to mention variations like Tameka and Lakesha. So once again, what makes you say that these names were "obviously invented?" Or would 20- or 30-something applicants named Lucy and Hillary obviously be fake as well?
Look, I'm not saying it's racism--it may, I suppose, just be reluctance to hire someone with an unfamiliar name. This would, however likely have a disproportionate affect on minority applicants and, either way, it's a bad thing both for job applicants and for the companies that are making their hiring decisions based on factors that should be irrelevant.
Nice cherry picking, Dan. Is a listing in which "black" names are clustered around the bottom, you manage to pluck out a couple of examples in which a certain black name did better than a certain white name.
How about...
Four of the top five names are white names. Five of the bottom five names are black names.
Of the names in the bottom half, 7/9 are black names. Of the names in the top half, 7/9 are white. The average ranking for a name is 9.5. The average ranking for white names is 6.1. The average ranking of black names is 12.9.
You have to really want to believe there is no racism for the implications to be anything less than blindingly obvious here. Though I agree with Dan: the names at the bottom of the list - black names all - are probably descriminated against because they are perceived as trashy.
EMAIL: pamela_woodlake@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL:
DATE: 01/19/2004 11:40:06
Truth is a kind and gentle lie.
EMAIL: nospam@nospampreteen-sex.info
IP: 68.152.252.74
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 04:02:43
He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare,And he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere.
Are you gonna re-new your resume? Have a peek here for the trending tips.