Reports of the death of racism have been greatly exaggerated

[Darth Wong]

Right résumé, wrong name
BY MARINA JIMÉNEZ

You are more likely to land a job interview if your name is John Martin or Emily Brown rather than Lei Li or Tara Singh – even if you have the same Canadian education and work experience.

These are the findings of a new study analyzing how employers in the Greater Toronto Area responded to 6,000 mock résumés for jobs ranging from admin assistant to accountant. Across the board, those with English names such as Greg Johnson and Michael Smith were 40 per cent more likely to receive callbacks than people with the same education and job experience with Indian, Chinese or Pakistani names such as Maya Kumar, Dong Liu and Fatima Sheikh.

The findings not only challenge Canada’s reputation as a country that celebrates diversity, but also underscore the difficulties that even highly skilled immigrants have in the labour market. Moreover, there was nothing in the study to reveal whether the “foreign-sounding” names were those of immigrants or of people born in Canada, suggesting that the offspring of immigrants also face name discrimination.

"When sorting through résumés, employers are making split-second decisions based on subconscious stereotypes that they may not even be aware of,” said Philip Oreopoulos, a University of British Columbia economist, and author of the study.

A recent U.S. study of employers in Chicago and Boston found a similar degree of name discrimination. Those with “white-sounding” names were 50 per cent more likely to be called for an interview for a blue-collar job than those with African-American names. But Prof. Oreopoulos didn’t expect Canadian employers to be as prejudiced. Canada’s much-lauded immigration program recruits highly skilled immigrants with the expectation that they will be quickly absorbed into the labour market.

In recent years, as source countries have shifted to Asia from Europe, unemployment rates among immigrants have been rising, despite high levels of education. In 2006, the unemployment rate for immigrants was 11.5 per cent, compared with 4.9 per cent for the Canadian-born population.

Without an interview, Prof. Oreopoulos suggested, there is no chance for those with foreign-sounding names to show employers that their English is fluent and their social etiquette appropriate.

For the study, released last week by Metropolis, an immigration and diversity research network, each of the 6,000 résumés sent out listed a bachelor’s degree and four to six years of work experience. They were tailored to job requirements and sent to 2,000 online job postings from employers across 20 occupational categories, including administrative, financial, marketing, programming and retail.

Sixteen per cent of those with English names received a callback, compared with 11 per cent for applicants with Pakistani, Indian and Chinese names who had the same level of education and job experience. The callback rate dropped to 8 per cent for those with foreign-sounding names who had been educated outside Canada but had Canadian job experience. It dropped to 5 per cent for those who also lacked Canadian job experience.

The mock résumés also listed attributes such as “highly motivated” and “fast learner,” as well as fluency in multiple languages, and extracurricular activities such as competitive squash player, classical pianist and volunteer for Habitat for Humanity.

But none of these had any particular impact. Nor did employers value degrees from prestigious universities or masters degrees. “Unfortunately, the study shows an applicant’s name matters considerably more than his or her additional education, multiple language skills and extracurricular activities,” Prof. Oreopoulos concluded.

There was only marginally less discrimination for jobs with less of a need for speaking and writing skills, such as accountants, computer programmers and Web developers.

This study does confirm that Canadian job experience is important to employers – more than a degree from a Canadian institution. Prof. Oreopoulos acknowledges that ambiguity is part of any hiring process but says being aware of prejudices will help employers screen for the right attributes.

“Correcting accidental tendencies of employers to favour native Caucasian candidates may lead to better hires.” Ironically, second-generation immigrants of Chinese and Indian origin statistically have above-average incomes and educations.

So, all of the people who say that the need for affirmative action is long gone ... what say you to this? Looks to me like there is still broad, systemic racism directed against non-whites, and that the playing field is still not level, by any means. And this is in the GTA: the most multi-cultural city in the world. Don't tell me it would be better in lily-white Iowa or some place like that.

[General Zod]

I remember seeing a similar study about this awhile ago, where they suggested even if you were white, the more unusual your name sounded the less likely employers were to give you a second look. The idea that racism is dead is absurd, but how likely is it that affirmative action would be something that's able to fix this kind of particular discrimination? It seems like it would be something that would be difficult to enforce or regulate.

[Darth Wong]

I remember seeing a similar study about this awhile ago, where they suggested even if you were white, the more unusual your name sounded the less likely employers were to give you a second look. The idea that racism is dead is absurd, but how likely is it that affirmative action would be something that's able to fix this kind of particular discrimination? It seems like it would be something that would be difficult to enforce or regulate.

It can't "fix" it; it is intended to compensate for it.

Those who attack AA claim that it is unfair to give special advantages to minorities. This argument implicitly presumes that there are no corresponding special advantages for whites. Unfortunately, that is simply false: we can see that there are substantial special advantages for whites, or at least people with white-sounding names. Therefore, some compensatory mechanism is required in order to "level the playing field", so to speak.

Moral of the story: if you want an interview and your last name is "Chang", you might want to consider legally changing it to "Peterson".

[General Zod]

It can't "fix" it; it is intended to compensate for it.

Those who attack AA claim that it is unfair to give special advantages to minorities. This argument implicitly presumes that there are no corresponding special advantages for whites. Unfortunately, that is simply false: we can see that there are substantial special advantages for whites, or at least people with white-sounding names. Therefore, some compensatory mechanism is required in order to "level the playing field", so to speak.

Right, but it seems like it does seem like it would be incredibly difficult to enforce without being able to show some kind of systemic pattern of rejecting applicants with non-white sounding names. I don't have any issues with the idea of something to even things out, I'm just not sure how you could make it effective.

[Darth Wong]

Right, but it seems like it does seem like it would be incredibly difficult to enforce without being able to show some kind of systemic pattern of rejecting applicants with non-white sounding names. I don't have any issues with the idea of something to even things out, I'm just not sure how you could make it effective.

What are you talking about? AA is easy to enforce: you simply do spot checks of companies above a certain size which seem to have very few minority employees (or where almost all of their minority employees are in low-wage positions), and then threaten them with substantial penalties if this situation is not rectified.

[fgalkin]

The company I used to work for actively avoided hiring African Americans because of the perception that once hired, they could not be fired without a lawsuit. Since it is a Russian-language company, they could get away with it by saying that none of the applicants had the necessary skills, but I know for a fact that even if someone fluent in Russian WOULD come along, they would not be hired.

That is a very common view among the Russian immigrant community in New York. An example of affirmative action actively harming, not helping, minorities.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Surlethe]

Here is a link to the article: Globe & Mail

I had the misimpression that racism is a deliberate, malicious targeting of minorities. It's not; it's often a small, subconscious bias in one direction or another which manifests itself statistically in studies like this.

[General Zod]

What are you talking about? AA is easy to enforce: you simply do spot checks of companies above a certain size which seem to have very few minority employees (or where almost all of their minority employees are in low-wage positions), and then threaten them with substantial penalties if this situation is not rectified.

Well, my only concern is how you'd prove that they really were rejecting more minority applicants than white applicants, especially if they were based in a predominantly white region. Unless they were required to keep records on rejected applicants for auditing as well, anyway.

[Darth Wong]

What are you talking about? AA is easy to enforce: you simply do spot checks of companies above a certain size which seem to have very few minority employees (or where almost all of their minority employees are in low-wage positions), and then threaten them with substantial penalties if this situation is not rectified.

Well, my only concern is how you'd prove that they really were rejecting more minority applicants than white applicants, especially if they were based in a predominantly white region. Unless they were required to keep records on rejected applicants for auditing as well, anyway.

Irrelevant. If they have anomalously low numbers of non-white employees, force them to hire more. You keep adding conditions that are not necessary.

[Darth Wong]

The company I used to work for actively avoided hiring African Americans because of the perception that once hired, they could not be fired without a lawsuit. Since it is a Russian-language company, they could get away with it by saying that none of the applicants had the necessary skills, but I know for a fact that even if someone fluent in Russian WOULD come along, they would not be hired.

That is a very common view among the Russian immigrant community in New York. An example of affirmative action actively harming, not helping, minorities.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

What a load of horseshit. If there were real AA, then that company would have been forced to hire blacks regardless. Since they didn't have any blacks on staff, it only proves that there was NOT any real AA in effect, so how the fuck do you blame AA for the company's behaviour? And don't tell me that prejudice played no role in this behaviour, or in the self-serving justifications they invented for it.

[fgalkin]

The company I used to work for actively avoided hiring African Americans because of the perception that once hired, they could not be fired without a lawsuit. Since it is a Russian-language company, they could get away with it by saying that none of the applicants had the necessary skills, but I know for a fact that even if someone fluent in Russian WOULD come along, they would not be hired.

That is a very common view among the Russian immigrant community in New York. An example of affirmative action actively harming, not helping, minorities.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

What a load of horseshit. If there were real AA, then that company would have been forced to hire blacks regardless. Since they didn't have any blacks on staff, it only proves that there was NOT any real AA in effect, so how the fuck do you blame AA for the company's behaviour? And don't tell me that prejudice played no role in this behaviour, or in the self-serving justifications they invented for it.

Of course prejudice played an effect here, it is evident even from their rationalizations for refusing to hire blacks- that they could not easily fire them. That implies that they would need to be fired at some point.

However, I am curious as to what you are suggesting- that companies are forced to hire minorities, even if they are not qualified for the job? Or am I misunderstanding you here?

Have a very nice day
-fgalkin

[Ryan Thunder]

Okay. Giving applicants ID numbers instead of names would solve part of this. I'm not sure what to do about the interview part, though.

[Darth Wong]

However, I am curious as to what you are suggesting- that companies are forced to hire minorities, even if they are not qualified for the job? Or am I misunderstanding you here?

Are you suggesting that minorities are especially likely to be incompetent or unqualified? Or am I misunderstanding you here?

[General Zod]

Okay. Giving applicants ID numbers instead of names would solve part of this. I'm not sure what to do about the interview part, though.

Except for the very large companies, I don't see how this is going to do a whole lot when the person who reads through resumes to remove the undesirables and the person who has the ultimate hiring authority are often the same person.

[fgalkin]

However, I am curious as to what you are suggesting- that companies are forced to hire minorities, even if they are not qualified for the job? Or am I misunderstanding you here?

Are you suggesting that minorities are especially likely to be incompetent or unqualified? Or am I misunderstanding you here?

Well, the job required fluency in Russian, which was the official reason for not hiring any minorites (except one, the Chief Legal Counsel is from Sri Lanka, but speaks fluent Russian. He is also a senior executive, so it's not really the same. And I'm pretty sure one of the reasons he's hired is because the company wanted an American-educated lawyer for that position, and he could be used to flount those AA regs).

The actual requirements varied- you could get away with English only in some areas, since most people in the company were bilingual, and there were some second generation Russians with very poor Russian skills speaking English only on the job. However, no black people were going to be hired, even if they fit the requirements because of the AA regs. Had these not been in place, they MIGHT have been considered.

Not that not working for it was a big loss anyway- the pay sucked and the company made you pay your own health insurance.

However, my question was this: are you suggesting that the company be forced to hire minorities even if they did not speak Russian?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Wong]

However, my question was this: are you suggesting that the company be forced to hire minorities even if they did not speak Russian?

It's a small company, so I don't see why you're even trying to apply my suggestion to it. Obviously, small companies can have unusual circumstances which can force unusual outcomes. In much larger companies, there is no such excuse. Or did you simply choose to ignore the part where I said "companies above a certain size"?

You tried to argue that AA actually hurts minorities, by using a completely irrelevant red-herring example of a company to which AA does not apply, and which was not actually being penalized in any way by AA. And now you're challenging me to justify AA in that same context. Either you're being a dishonest fuckwit or you're just mindlessly recycling rehearsed talking points without ensuring that they actually apply to the discussion.

[Redleader34]

So, all of the people who say that the need for affirmative action is long gone ... what say you to this? Looks to me like there is still broad, systemic racism directed against non-whites, and that the playing field is still not level, by any means. And this is in the GTA: the most multi-cultural city in the world. Don't tell me it would be better in lily-white Iowa or some place like that.

Every region does this, but its sad to say this is almost a nonstory as it seems to pop up every 5-10 years, racism doesn't just go away as the internet shows, and the one bad thing about Obama's presidency in America is that people will say "welp end of racism guys good job folks!"

[Master of Ossus]

I generally oppose affirmative action for the simple reason that I think it creates resentment more than it provides opportunities. For every white guy who legitimately misses out on a job because of an affirmative action policy, there are 10,000 white guys who think they missed out on jobs because of affirmative action policies. And they talk about it. I don't think that that provides a good environment either for minority success (since even if their performance is good many people believe that affirmative action policies had something to do with their success), and amongst minorities I think it creates a situation where they overreach and get put into positions where they are out-competed by white peers in professional and upper-managerial positions. Here's a UCLA study suggesting that aggressive recruitment and preference for minority applicants in both law firms and law schools perpetuates white dominance in law firms for that reason.

[Darth Wong]

The study you cite does not provide any evidence that this "resentment" factor of yours is a major problem. Instead, it seems to argue that there are many other reasons why blacks and hispanics have trouble progressing up the corporate ladder in these elite white-dominated law firms. It does argue that one of the reasons may be an assumption that the candidate has gotten in with inferior qualifications, but he presents no real evidence for this. It's mere speculation.

[apocolypse]

I have to disagree wrt MoO's post. We're discussing the topic in one of my classes, and the important thing to remember is that affirmative action does not negate that you must have a minimum level of competancy in a field. You're not going to get hired because just because you're a minority. You're going to get hired because you meet at least the minimum qualifications needed. If people don't understand this, then the resentment isn't the fault of affirmative action, but rather their lack of understanding of it. Further, it does provide a much needed boost because women and minorities have been historically oppressed, thus leading to current day underrepresentation in both the workforce and in school.

Further, I find it absurd to complain about not getting a job when we see studies showing that Anglo sounding names are more likely to be the ones getting call-backs and whatnot.

[Teebs]

Giving applicants ID numbers instead of names, as suggested by Ryan, seems like a good idea. It wouldn't deal with overt racism at interview, but it would eliminate any sub-conscious rejection of people for sounding foreign. It would also be likely to provoke far less resentment than direct affirmative action (which has no bearing on the moral aspects but is relevant for practical implementation).

[General Zod]

Giving applicants ID numbers instead of names, as suggested by Ryan, seems like a good idea. It wouldn't deal with overt racism at interview, but it would eliminate any sub-conscious rejection of people for sounding foreign. It would also be likely to provoke far less resentment than direct affirmative action (which has no bearing on the moral aspects but is relevant for practical implementation).

Any kind of ID numbering scheme will be worthless the moment you have to call their former employers and references to verify their history.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, I've seen zero evidence that white racist "resentment" is actually caused by AA, rather than being a pre-existing problem. Don't people realize how fucking racist people were, right in the open, not too long ago? Where do you think all of the fucking racists raised in the 1960s went? You know, the majority of the country which (contrary to popular mythology) did not go to Woodstock? They're running all of the big companies right now.

As I said, white racists have a long history of inventing justifications for their bigotry. Why are we taking their latest excuse at face value?

[Teebs]

Any kind of ID numbering scheme will be worthless the moment you have to call their former employers and references to verify their history.

I thought the article was saying that much of the problem came from a sub-conscious impulse in split second decisions? I thought references were generally asked for once they've decided they at least like you a bit at interview?

Frankly, I've seen zero evidence that white racist "resentment" is actually caused by AA, rather than being a pre-existing problem. Don't people realize how fucking racist people were, right in the open, not too long ago? Where do you think all of the fucking racists raised in the 1960s went? You know, the majority of the country which (contrary to popular mythology) did not go to Woodstock? They're running all of the big companies right now.

As I said, white racists have a long history of inventing justifications for their bigotry. Why are we taking their latest excuse at face value?

I agree, I wasn't clear in what I meant by provoking resentment. What I was trying to say was that there's no way for them to argue that they're being unfairly treated with a name replacement scheme i.e. there's no excuse and I think that's something that has changed in recent years, that people need an excuse before they can openly complain (I'm not saying that they don't think it).

I'd support a direct affirmative action scheme too. I just think some kind of ID number scheme would be a quick partial solution with little controversy and as such provides a useful measure in the time between now and the introduction of any affirmative action scheme.

[Master of Ossus]

The study you cite does not provide any evidence that this "resentment" factor of yours is a major problem.

True, but I think that resentment is a major problem with affirmative action--IMO you shouldn't just dismiss the magnitude of complaints against affirmative action by whites who frequently cite "personal experiences" with being denied jobs. They frequently attribute this to affirmative action policies, even when no such policies exist or when it's very, very unlikely that they actually had any influence on the hiring decision.

Instead, it seems to argue that there are many other reasons why blacks and hispanics have trouble progressing up the corporate ladder in these elite white-dominated law firms. It does argue that one of the reasons may be an assumption that the candidate has gotten in with inferior qualifications, but he presents no real evidence for this. It's mere speculation.

I disagree with your reading of the study: it shows not only that minorities (blacks and hispanics, especially) score significantly worse on graduate studies admissions exams (obviously the earlier study I linked to looked only at the LSAT), but the data presented in the study show that blacks and Hispanics who are admitted have weaker credentials than white students, do substantially worse in their first year of law school, and that those groups taken as a whole have only a very weak chance of graduating in the top quarter of their class (5.8% of students matriculating to top law schools are black, for instance, but less than 1% of those graduating in the top quarter are black) [Tables 4; 5].

Major law firms actually hire more black candidates, by percentage, than are in these top institutions (I assume that white candidates are disprortionately hired by other law firms and other positions--but Table 7 indicates that over 8% of AmLaw 100 firm hires are black--compare that to the earlier 5.8% of black matriculating students among top-tier institutions). This indicates a strong hiring preference for black and minority candidates, even when their grades are comparatively weak and hence their qualifications are lower.

[Edit: Frickin' tags.]