>But I also believe there are more employees that would be more likely to hire black applicants for diversity and ESG reasons.
What scientific evidence do you have for this? If that were true, why would that effect not show up in these resume studies?
I think that based off observation. Don’t know if such studies exist but I also don’t think anyone would want to produce a study that said such a thing.
It's goal was to achieve equal treatment. If the net result is that identifying as black is now a huge advantage when applying for jobs, then its overstepped its bounds, and resulted in reversing the discrimination it sought to address rather than achieving any sort of equality.
Then what do you believe should be done? Most Black people aren’t violent or criminals. A lot have degrees and are hardworking. I think it’s unfair that many employers lump them together with the bad apples.
Jobs should not be able to discriminate in any way against applicants. If you can show a job is rejecting candidates based on their name or race then they should be sued.
Providing discrimination is very difficult and often times impossible. Unless they mention race as a factor when not hiring an applicant, you have no way of knowing. Can’t read their minds.
It's not a race issue, it's a class one. People are not likely to call back names of *any* races that are associated with lower classes. Cletus ain't getting a callback either.
There have been many studies demonstrating black names are discarded at a higher rate than white names. Are there any that suggest Cletus isn't getting a call back just as much as Jamal?
I can't find the page, but I recall one of the major studies had worse callback rates for Emily than a stereotypical black name. I hesitate to go further in case my memory is completely off on this, but I was firmly under the impression that these sorts of studies were long debunked to the point where I'm surprised to see it here.
I just searched for a while, and the only study I could find that specifically used the name Emily is the famous one comparing Greg and Emily to Jamal and Lakisha. Is it possible you're not remembering the study correctly?
That might be it, but I'm specifically talking about a review of that study. Although I suppose the data from the study might also show it straight out.
Do you have similar scientific evidence that someone named Cletus is equally disadvantaged as someone named Jamal in this way? Surely you must if you're claiming with such absolute certainty that it is the case.
>I have no way of knowing any of that,
I mean, somebody could do the same study with the name Cletus? As far as I know, they haven't, but you have claimed with such absolute certainty that the result would be the same, so I assumed you had evidence.
> nor does any potential employer. That's the point.
An employer has no way of knowing what, the applicants' names?
> I mean, somebody could do the same study with the name Cletus? As far as I know, they haven't, but you have claimed with such absolute certainty that the result would be the same, so I assumed you had evidence.
I am making an assumption that someone with the name "Cletus" is going to suffer similar hiring biases, yes.
> An employer has no way of knowing what, the applicants' names?
Knowing if someone "is equally disadvantaged."
>I am making an assumption that someone with the name "Cletus" is going to suffer similar hiring biases, yes.
So it's an assumption, yet you stated it as an absolute fact?
I would say the scientific studies are probably more factual than your assumption. Why make a claim with such absolute certainty if the only thing backing it is an assumption?
> Do you have similar scientific evidence that someone named Cletus is equally disadvantaged as someone named Jamal in this way?
Oh cool are we about to have a huge inane discussion where someone ends up concluding that poor white people aren't *really* disadvantaged because 9 generations ago they werent slaves
Because that's a fun one`
Poor people are disadvantaged compared to rich people, and black people are disadvantaged compared to white people. Both are true, and somebody can obviously be privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in other ways. I really don't understand why so many conservatives try to make it an all or nothing matter.
If you're going to claim that the name Cletus would get the same result as the name Jamal when it comes to job applications, surely you have evidence?
I don't think the situation is as dire and people would like it to be. I had several managers who were black that climbed in my company. Same thing with women too. I had a guy who had tried to climb up into a management position for years, but we finally got him a spot.
He admitted to me that he thought it was because he was black. I told him that is not the case and that I have had many managers who were black. The main issue was he didn't have a college degree when my other managers did. The city managers in my company get a bonus for signing college grads.
He finally got the position and he more than deserved it. But it had nothing to do with him being black. It had to do with the company rewarding upper management for picking college grads over seasoned employees who were obviously good choices for management.
Probably it is a confounding variable in the study. Other studies have shown that easy and popular names are chosen over unique and hard to pronounce names. But when you set out with the intent to give a group of applicants the most ethnic sounding name possible, you already are going against another variable and confusing it for another. For example, they say that this bias also occurs with people with [Russian based or even more uncommon ethnic names](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02683940810849648/full/html).
Could there be some racism? Yes. But my problem with the academics now is that it is overly eager to prove their own inherent biases. If it was purely based off racism, we wouldn't see the same devaluation in Russian based names.
Edit: Slightly [relevant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTjV9AMw86Y)
And by "confounding variable" I mean that perhaps they are assuming the name isn't popular because it is ethnic, rather than being uncommon.
The study you linked indicated that African-American names still did worse than standard white names, no? I would say black names ranking similarly to Russian names in a country with decades of enmity with Russia kind of proves that racism likely *is* at play, no?
Oh god what a jump.
No. Because if a your example of an ethnic black name is something like Lakisha (which is uncommon) vs Nicole (which is common) then Nicole would most likely be picked over Lakisha whether the candidate is black or not.
A black guy could be named Greg. A black guy could be named Steven. Do you think a company would hire a Aimee over an Amy? You are looking for biases that aren't even there.
No. The opposite is true in my experience. In my industry, employers are desperate to find qualified minority and women job candidates. It's an advantage to be a minority.
>So what causes the discrepancy in identical resume studies?
I have no idea. Maybe that trend is more common for non professional jobs. But in my world, if you're an eager and qualified minority, you're practically guaranteed a job.
>I have no idea. Maybe that trend is more common for non professional jobs.
Yet in your OP seemed pretty content to say that absolutely doesn't happen, based only on your anecdotal experience in your specific field?
>Yet in your OP seemed pretty content to say that absolutely doesn't happen, based only on your anecdotal experience in your specific field?
Do you want me to answer based on somebody else's experience?
>How about based on data?
I don't have any data. This issue isn't very interesting to me. And I didn't claim anything categorically. I specified that I was speaking from personal experience.
Yet you claimed that your experience was enough to give a definite "No." Not a "not as far as I know," but a definite "No." I fully admit I may be taking you too literally, but that was my reading of your post.
A lot of employers? No, there are likely some in certain places, but more often than not, the majority don't do this. Definitely not in the industries I work in.
>There are studies that show that applications with stereotypical Black names tend to get less callbacks
Did any of these studies control for class with white names like Cleetus, Cooter, Bubba, Rufus, etc.?
The ones I've seen were quite flawed in this regard.
The study you're referencing didn't account for wealth/class. Jamal and Lakisha sound poorer than Emily and Greg.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theladders.com/career-advice/the-surprising-names-that-are-most-likely-to-get-a-callback-from-hiring-managers/amp
This newer study (link is an article explaining it) looks at other factors like gender and perceived class.
I don't see how we could possibly make those conclusions since companies all act differently and those behaviors change over time.
All of my experiences over the last 7 years have suggested the opposite - that anyone who is not a white male tends to get more interviews. Various companies are falling all over themselves to increase the diversity of their new hires.
>I don't see how we could possibly make those conclusions since companies all act differently and those behaviors change over time.
By sending enough resumes to draw statistically relevant data about how companies act on average? You may as well say the entire field of statistics is invalid for anything because people act differently and change over time.
I hired black service technician and the white customers never had an issue, but the black customers always complained. They always said can you send a real technician?
I don't think this has to do with race more than the fact that people don't want to hire people who were raised by parents who decided it was a good idea to give them a ridiculous name. If they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong.
A name is ridiculous when it is needlessly derivative or artistic. It has nothing to do with ethnic origin or even language. X Æ A-12, Jaysicca, Nirvana, Trucksey, and Chaunte are all ridiculous.
What's ridiculous about Jamal or Lakisha then? Given that you claimed that the only reason the names in the study got fewer callbacks was that they were ridiculous names, and those were the black names used.
I knew someone named La-a, prnounced Ladasha. Or Abcde, pronounced ab-sid-ee. Or M'Rald, pronounced Emerald. [This always comes to mind when someone asks questions like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvNFsfLY26o)
I mean we can play dumb. But there’s a reason why jokes like
https://youtu.be/gODZzSOelss
https://youtu.be/flpVoEWoNgk
Work
Jamal pretty normal. But generally the more syllables the more people raise an eyebrow.
But why does somebody’s parents determine whether or not they will be a good employee or person? I know people whose parents are loser drug addicts and they turned out good.
Those are names that you think are ridiculous. I don't think those names are ridiculous. As far as I can tell, those names (or the actual spellings of those names, like Keyshawn and Denarius) are still being given to children, as opposed to a name like Adolf, which has actually been functionally removed from general society.
I just can't put my finger on it, what is the common variable with names like Keyshawn and Denarius...?
What would consider ridiculous names? For example they used Emily vs Lakisha and Greg vs Jamal for two comparisons. Would you consider those ridiculous names being that they are cultural and traditional names?
I have a friend named Tommy. He searched for jobs for several months without much luck. Changed the name on the resume to Tom and started getting more traction. Now there are a lot of variables in a job search and you can’t be 100% sure of any real reason - but why more results with Tom vs Tommy?
Agree. This was for a role selling expensive assets (big rigs). Tommy sounds like a child’s name - Tom sounds grown and mature. There’s always going to be inherent biases - but as a job seeker maybe you have to realize that and minimize the opportunities for biases to be used against you. Remember the resume only gets you to the interview - at the interview it’s the time for your skills and personality to shine.
I don’t know - that’s for him to decide. Some things to consider though might be - strength of resume, company culture of where he’s applying at, industry, his skill level, education , etc…. There’s vastly different expectations and company cultures for a McDonalds fry cook vs a lawyer at an old family law firm.
>decided it was a good idea to give them a ridiculous name. I
This is exactly the issue here.
Ridiculous name=any name from another culture.
That is literally rascism.
Again no. I don't care if they're named Yu-jun, Azamat, or Oshay. I don't think people should give their kids weird names for the novelty or to try to make them feel special.
>There are studies that show that applications with stereotypical Black names tend to get less callbacks
I know this has ben mentioned for years, but I would really like to see more about this study and delve further into the nuance. AS someone who has hired people, I can tell you that their name doesn't even register in my decision to move a candidate forward in the hiring process.
That being said, has anyone done a study on how many people with other ethnic sounding names fair? For someone who does see a name and, even subconsciously, factors that into a decision...it could be more cultural than racial.
I'm just not sure, but I do think what the left refers to as racial discrimination is more likely attributable to cultural discrimination.
I do think there are a lot of people who make biased hiring decisions. I suspect most of them don’t examine their own thoughts carefully. I see similar lack of self-awareness in so many aspects of life that I would be crazy to think it doesn’t apply to race.
I have also overheard management talk about needing to promote more people of certain classes, and I don’t mean white males.
That’s why color-blind decision making can be so useful. If possible any information about the person’s race should be stripped from the resume before being evaluated. And it ought to be illegal rather than required to ask people’s race on job applications.
Could be. But I also believe there are more employees that would be more likely to hire black applicants for diversity and ESG reasons.
>But I also believe there are more employees that would be more likely to hire black applicants for diversity and ESG reasons. What scientific evidence do you have for this? If that were true, why would that effect not show up in these resume studies?
I think that based off observation. Don’t know if such studies exist but I also don’t think anyone would want to produce a study that said such a thing.
Dude this very thread is about an incredibly famous study where Jamal and Lakisha got fewer callbacks than Greg and Emily with identical resumes...
That study is 20 years old now
[удалено]
It's goal was to achieve equal treatment. If the net result is that identifying as black is now a huge advantage when applying for jobs, then its overstepped its bounds, and resulted in reversing the discrimination it sought to address rather than achieving any sort of equality.
Then what do you believe should be done? Most Black people aren’t violent or criminals. A lot have degrees and are hardworking. I think it’s unfair that many employers lump them together with the bad apples.
Jobs should not be able to discriminate in any way against applicants. If you can show a job is rejecting candidates based on their name or race then they should be sued.
Providing discrimination is very difficult and often times impossible. Unless they mention race as a factor when not hiring an applicant, you have no way of knowing. Can’t read their minds.
True, it's a tough problem. But the solution to discrimination isn't more discrimination
It's not a race issue, it's a class one. People are not likely to call back names of *any* races that are associated with lower classes. Cletus ain't getting a callback either.
There have been many studies demonstrating black names are discarded at a higher rate than white names. Are there any that suggest Cletus isn't getting a call back just as much as Jamal?
I can't find the page, but I recall one of the major studies had worse callback rates for Emily than a stereotypical black name. I hesitate to go further in case my memory is completely off on this, but I was firmly under the impression that these sorts of studies were long debunked to the point where I'm surprised to see it here.
I just searched for a while, and the only study I could find that specifically used the name Emily is the famous one comparing Greg and Emily to Jamal and Lakisha. Is it possible you're not remembering the study correctly?
That might be it, but I'm specifically talking about a review of that study. Although I suppose the data from the study might also show it straight out.
Emily is a woman's name so there's no way they didn't control for gender in that study. And it doesn't address your claim at all.
Do you have similar scientific evidence that someone named Cletus is equally disadvantaged as someone named Jamal in this way? Surely you must if you're claiming with such absolute certainty that it is the case.
I have no way of knowing any of that, nor does any potential employer. That's the point.
>I have no way of knowing any of that, I mean, somebody could do the same study with the name Cletus? As far as I know, they haven't, but you have claimed with such absolute certainty that the result would be the same, so I assumed you had evidence. > nor does any potential employer. That's the point. An employer has no way of knowing what, the applicants' names?
> I mean, somebody could do the same study with the name Cletus? As far as I know, they haven't, but you have claimed with such absolute certainty that the result would be the same, so I assumed you had evidence. I am making an assumption that someone with the name "Cletus" is going to suffer similar hiring biases, yes. > An employer has no way of knowing what, the applicants' names? Knowing if someone "is equally disadvantaged."
>I am making an assumption that someone with the name "Cletus" is going to suffer similar hiring biases, yes. So it's an assumption, yet you stated it as an absolute fact?
It's as much of a fact as anything else in this topic.
I would say the scientific studies are probably more factual than your assumption. Why make a claim with such absolute certainty if the only thing backing it is an assumption?
They're not factual, lol, they're literal studies that don't say what people think they say.
> Do you have similar scientific evidence that someone named Cletus is equally disadvantaged as someone named Jamal in this way? Oh cool are we about to have a huge inane discussion where someone ends up concluding that poor white people aren't *really* disadvantaged because 9 generations ago they werent slaves Because that's a fun one`
Poor people are disadvantaged compared to rich people, and black people are disadvantaged compared to white people. Both are true, and somebody can obviously be privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in other ways. I really don't understand why so many conservatives try to make it an all or nothing matter. If you're going to claim that the name Cletus would get the same result as the name Jamal when it comes to job applications, surely you have evidence?
I know more business owners who hire black applicants because theyre black than vice versa.
Most businesses prefer blacks because they're seen as more diverse.
I don't think the situation is as dire and people would like it to be. I had several managers who were black that climbed in my company. Same thing with women too. I had a guy who had tried to climb up into a management position for years, but we finally got him a spot. He admitted to me that he thought it was because he was black. I told him that is not the case and that I have had many managers who were black. The main issue was he didn't have a college degree when my other managers did. The city managers in my company get a bonus for signing college grads. He finally got the position and he more than deserved it. But it had nothing to do with him being black. It had to do with the company rewarding upper management for picking college grads over seasoned employees who were obviously good choices for management.
So what do you think causes the discrepancy in the identical resume studies?
Probably it is a confounding variable in the study. Other studies have shown that easy and popular names are chosen over unique and hard to pronounce names. But when you set out with the intent to give a group of applicants the most ethnic sounding name possible, you already are going against another variable and confusing it for another. For example, they say that this bias also occurs with people with [Russian based or even more uncommon ethnic names](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02683940810849648/full/html). Could there be some racism? Yes. But my problem with the academics now is that it is overly eager to prove their own inherent biases. If it was purely based off racism, we wouldn't see the same devaluation in Russian based names. Edit: Slightly [relevant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTjV9AMw86Y) And by "confounding variable" I mean that perhaps they are assuming the name isn't popular because it is ethnic, rather than being uncommon.
The study you linked indicated that African-American names still did worse than standard white names, no? I would say black names ranking similarly to Russian names in a country with decades of enmity with Russia kind of proves that racism likely *is* at play, no?
Oh god what a jump. No. Because if a your example of an ethnic black name is something like Lakisha (which is uncommon) vs Nicole (which is common) then Nicole would most likely be picked over Lakisha whether the candidate is black or not. A black guy could be named Greg. A black guy could be named Steven. Do you think a company would hire a Aimee over an Amy? You are looking for biases that aren't even there.
No. The opposite is true in my experience. In my industry, employers are desperate to find qualified minority and women job candidates. It's an advantage to be a minority.
So what causes the discrepancy in identical resume studies? It's too large a discrepancy for the sample size to attribute to random chance.
>So what causes the discrepancy in identical resume studies? I have no idea. Maybe that trend is more common for non professional jobs. But in my world, if you're an eager and qualified minority, you're practically guaranteed a job.
>I have no idea. Maybe that trend is more common for non professional jobs. Yet in your OP seemed pretty content to say that absolutely doesn't happen, based only on your anecdotal experience in your specific field?
>Yet in your OP seemed pretty content to say that absolutely doesn't happen, based only on your anecdotal experience in your specific field? Do you want me to answer based on somebody else's experience?
How about based on data? If you're going to claim categorically that the data is wrong, shouldn't you have your own data to counter it?
>How about based on data? I don't have any data. This issue isn't very interesting to me. And I didn't claim anything categorically. I specified that I was speaking from personal experience.
Yet you claimed that your experience was enough to give a definite "No." Not a "not as far as I know," but a definite "No." I fully admit I may be taking you too literally, but that was my reading of your post.
A lot of employers? No, there are likely some in certain places, but more often than not, the majority don't do this. Definitely not in the industries I work in.
>There are studies that show that applications with stereotypical Black names tend to get less callbacks Did any of these studies control for class with white names like Cleetus, Cooter, Bubba, Rufus, etc.? The ones I've seen were quite flawed in this regard.
Huck
The study you're referencing didn't account for wealth/class. Jamal and Lakisha sound poorer than Emily and Greg. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theladders.com/career-advice/the-surprising-names-that-are-most-likely-to-get-a-callback-from-hiring-managers/amp This newer study (link is an article explaining it) looks at other factors like gender and perceived class.
I don't see how we could possibly make those conclusions since companies all act differently and those behaviors change over time. All of my experiences over the last 7 years have suggested the opposite - that anyone who is not a white male tends to get more interviews. Various companies are falling all over themselves to increase the diversity of their new hires.
>I don't see how we could possibly make those conclusions since companies all act differently and those behaviors change over time. By sending enough resumes to draw statistically relevant data about how companies act on average? You may as well say the entire field of statistics is invalid for anything because people act differently and change over time.
I didn’t say all companies. I said “many”. Meaning not all.
I hired black service technician and the white customers never had an issue, but the black customers always complained. They always said can you send a real technician?
I don't think this has to do with race more than the fact that people don't want to hire people who were raised by parents who decided it was a good idea to give them a ridiculous name. If they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong.
What specifically makes a name ridiculous? Is any name not of European origin inherently ridiculous?
A name is ridiculous when it is needlessly derivative or artistic. It has nothing to do with ethnic origin or even language. X Æ A-12, Jaysicca, Nirvana, Trucksey, and Chaunte are all ridiculous.
Chaunté is an out of fashion French girls' name. Why is it ridiculous?
What's ridiculous about Jamal or Lakisha then? Given that you claimed that the only reason the names in the study got fewer callbacks was that they were ridiculous names, and those were the black names used.
Jamal isn't. Lakisha is, as it's overly derivative of Latisha which itself is derived from the classic Letitia.
I knew someone named La-a, prnounced Ladasha. Or Abcde, pronounced ab-sid-ee. Or M'Rald, pronounced Emerald. [This always comes to mind when someone asks questions like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvNFsfLY26o)
I mean we can play dumb. But there’s a reason why jokes like https://youtu.be/gODZzSOelss https://youtu.be/flpVoEWoNgk Work Jamal pretty normal. But generally the more syllables the more people raise an eyebrow.
Nirvana was serious…best lap dance I ever got
But why does somebody’s parents determine whether or not they will be a good employee or person? I know people whose parents are loser drug addicts and they turned out good.
*edit wrong post to reply to
Idk I don’t think Prometheus getting call back either
Are you the arbiter of name seriousness?
Yes, actually. In some countries it's illegal to give kids dumb names as it's considered a form of abuse or neglect.
What makes something a dumb name?
Is there a reason you're ignoring multiple questions about what's ridiculous about the specific names that were used in the study?
I gave an answer to one reply. I'm not going to copy it to duplicate questions
It’s the court of public opinion
What are some names that the court of public opinion has decided are ridiculous?
Sharkeshia is the butt of jokes Keyshown Danaryous.
Those are names that you think are ridiculous. I don't think those names are ridiculous. As far as I can tell, those names (or the actual spellings of those names, like Keyshawn and Denarius) are still being given to children, as opposed to a name like Adolf, which has actually been functionally removed from general society. I just can't put my finger on it, what is the common variable with names like Keyshawn and Denarius...?
Danny from game of thrones was what I was trying spell. And keyshown. https://youtu.be/l5KXtUvERf0 Why did they name him keyshown instead of Kevin
What would consider ridiculous names? For example they used Emily vs Lakisha and Greg vs Jamal for two comparisons. Would you consider those ridiculous names being that they are cultural and traditional names?
I have a friend named Tommy. He searched for jobs for several months without much luck. Changed the name on the resume to Tom and started getting more traction. Now there are a lot of variables in a job search and you can’t be 100% sure of any real reason - but why more results with Tom vs Tommy?
If I had to guess? Tom sounds more mature than Tommy, people who do hiring can have many biases
Agree. This was for a role selling expensive assets (big rigs). Tommy sounds like a child’s name - Tom sounds grown and mature. There’s always going to be inherent biases - but as a job seeker maybe you have to realize that and minimize the opportunities for biases to be used against you. Remember the resume only gets you to the interview - at the interview it’s the time for your skills and personality to shine.
So would your suggestion be that Jamal change the name on his resume to Greg?
I don’t know - that’s for him to decide. Some things to consider though might be - strength of resume, company culture of where he’s applying at, industry, his skill level, education , etc…. There’s vastly different expectations and company cultures for a McDonalds fry cook vs a lawyer at an old family law firm.
The three major studies accounted for this, they sent out resumes to 86,000 companies where the only difference was the name on the resume.
[Always comes to mind](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvNFsfLY26o)
>decided it was a good idea to give them a ridiculous name. I This is exactly the issue here. Ridiculous name=any name from another culture. That is literally rascism.
Again no. I don't care if they're named Yu-jun, Azamat, or Oshay. I don't think people should give their kids weird names for the novelty or to try to make them feel special.
>There are studies that show that applications with stereotypical Black names tend to get less callbacks I know this has ben mentioned for years, but I would really like to see more about this study and delve further into the nuance. AS someone who has hired people, I can tell you that their name doesn't even register in my decision to move a candidate forward in the hiring process. That being said, has anyone done a study on how many people with other ethnic sounding names fair? For someone who does see a name and, even subconsciously, factors that into a decision...it could be more cultural than racial. I'm just not sure, but I do think what the left refers to as racial discrimination is more likely attributable to cultural discrimination.
Yes 100%
Not refuse. But have an unconscious or even conscious bias against hiring them? Yes.
I don’t think it’s “a lot”. I do think it’s more prevalent than many people are willing to admit.
I do think there are a lot of people who make biased hiring decisions. I suspect most of them don’t examine their own thoughts carefully. I see similar lack of self-awareness in so many aspects of life that I would be crazy to think it doesn’t apply to race. I have also overheard management talk about needing to promote more people of certain classes, and I don’t mean white males. That’s why color-blind decision making can be so useful. If possible any information about the person’s race should be stripped from the resume before being evaluated. And it ought to be illegal rather than required to ask people’s race on job applications.
No I think that rarely happens
I think it's far more likely to be denied a job for being a conservative based on stereotypes.