They shoudln’t be. I wonder, though, if the discrimination isn’t so much against race, but against perceptions of an urban black subculture held by those doing the hiring. I’m also curious if those from other subcultures that are percieved negatively (rural Southern whites, etc.) face the same sort of discrimination, versus a control group.
What about true African names? What would an employer do if they were faced with resumes from Ayorinde Adedayo or Mary Mwangi, as opposed to Tyrone White or Shaniqua Green? I have a hunch that the African-Africans may be favored over the African-Americans.
Well, first, you should change your name to “alpha-particle vision”. It would be so much more appropriate. (See? I trust that I am being slightly wittier then if I had commented on his relative skill at fellatio?)
Next, you talk about people’s ability to “speak English correct” as a job qualification.
Finally, you corrected by a black poster who speaks English better then you do.
Also, I would posit that the race thang is a function of income/class, not inherent in the melanin. Can someone dig up some cites about crime rates, education level, etc. when sampling people of different races but similar incomes?
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m not saying that there can’t be nice non-white cities at all. I’m saying that you can’t blame blacks for shitty living conditions when those living conditions are often the fault of the whites who left the cities.
Take Detroit for example. After the 1967 riots many whites simply up and left. They abandoned their homes or rented them out. The they wouldn’t pay taxes on abandoned homes thus depriving the city of that tax base, and having those homes become drug dens, and perpetuating blight. The rented homes lacked up-keep, after all, what renter puts money into their home? This isn’t the fault of the folks who stayed because they couldn’t afford to leave, but who left and didn’t take any responsibility for their own home. The numbers are [url=]staggering
To blame urban blight on the blacks is ridiculous.
You know, when you get a hundred applications for a job from qualified applicants, you have to discriminate based on something. Some people do it based on the kind of paper the resume is on, or the kind of font used. To be honest, if I was hiring for a position that I needed to interract with high level people, I would think twice about taking my time to interview a woman with the name “Sunny Dawn Day” (I actually met a girl with that name once, didn’t get a resume from her). Candy, Kitty, Taffy, and a bunch of others are just as likely to draw a pass as black names. Just from athletes names, I can figure that I don’t want my customers having to call up “Peerless” or something like that. Same goes for Toshiba, Poison (told to me by a black guy I worked with, someone he knew named their kids after perfume. and yes, the one before was named after the family tv.) It isn’t discrimination really, you just don’t want people to not take your company seriously.
You see Texican what you’re supposed be discriminating on is experience. If you have five people with the exact same experience you’re supposed to be interviewing all of them.
I remember reading about a study that was conducted along similar lines showing bias towards those in academia with reputations versus those that did not. Identical papers were submitted to peer-reviewed academic journals. The only change to each paper were the names. Those papers submitted with the names of prominent/well known members of a particular academic field were more likely to have their paper accepted for publication versus those that were less well known/prominent. Again, the only difference between the papers submitted were the names.
Gah - I tried doing a serch on the Internet for the relevant study, but I’m coming up blank. Those with better search-engine skills might be able to locate it.
Sigh - one more instance that sometimes perception IS reality…
Well, if I have 5, I would interview them all. If I have 50, forget it, I dont have that kind of time.
However I take issue with your telling me what I am supposed to do. On what do you base this? I’m not trying to pick a fight, I’m just saying that it is no one’s business to tell an employer how to conduct employee screenings.
For the record, I go out of my way to pick people who may not have been given a fair shake otherwise. I find them to be more loyal, appreciative of the opportunity, and eager to show what they can do.
At the same time, I never waste my time with anyone who majored in African American Studies or Feminist Studies. They haven’t learned a thing of value in the real world. Of course if they had a demonstrated track record after college that would be different, but if they are within a couple of years I don’t think its my job to teach them what college should have.
I’ll tell you who really gets discriminated against…people over 40, and especially over 50. Employers are afraid that they will consider less than a management job beneath them, and that they will resent working alongside people half their age. Also in that they will still be looking for a job that is equal to their abilities, and as soon as something comes along they will quit. I feel so sorry for some of them in that they practically plead with you that they just need a job as their old company shut down, and no one wants them because they are too old.
The thing about having non-mainstream names is that if you want to work in a mainstream, conventional organisation, you can change your name, quite legally and easily. Maybe you shouldn’t have to, but the point is you can, and the fact is that names like “Daysee” and “Tiffani” and “Brittnee” are really going to face derision and discrimination among many people.
So if you’re smart, you can always apply to the job as “Danielle” instead of “Daysee”, just for the job interview. People IMO pay more regard to first names than they do to surnames. ie: “John Hogbottom” is going to get more respect than “Rocket Smith”.
It’s the same old argument as it is about long hair/facial hair/tattoos/body piercing. Yes, it’s your choice, and yes, you shouldn’t be judged on it. But the fact is that you will be, so why make it hard for yourself? If you want to pioneer something unconventional, good luck to you, but be prepared for the sacrfices you may have to make in your trailblazing.
Now I’m about as un-PC as they come, but I think the point people are trying to make to you x-ray vision is that anytime you say “Blacks do this” or “Chinese do that” you are, if not being an outright racist, making broad sweeping judgements based on partial or incorrect information and stereotypes. For example:
What is wrong with this expression:
“Newark was once beautiful but has turned to shit”
“Many Blacks have moved into Newark, coinciding with the cities decline”
Thus “Blacks turn neighborhoods to shit”
Well, for one, it does not tell you if neighborhoods turn to shit because blacks move in or if Blacks have to move into shitty neighborhoods because they tend to have less money.
The fact of the matter is that many companies do want a certain look and feel to their candidates. Especially in client jobs. Five of us from work went into a Chineese restaurant and my boss spent about five minutes talking to what he thought was our usual waiter until he realized “just because they all look alike doesn’t mean they are the same person”. I responded to him “yeah…like they aren’t saying the same thing about the five Caucasians who just sat down - all medium height, medium build, wearing identical Navy blue suits and white dress shirts.”
I’ll admit though, if I see a resume for
“Tyrone Washington”
OBJECTIVE: To get my job on
SKILZ: etc…
I might question if this candidate is right for the job.
According to the study, all you had to have was “Tyrone Washington” on the resume, and it would go into the garbage. Nothing about the candidate’s language skills or behavior.
point notied msmith, but the thing is if you saw “Tyrone Washington” on an application peiord, would you toss it out like x-ray there regardless of how good (or bad) the resume is or not.
Likewise would you call in “William T. Jefferson III” based on the name alone even though his resume says
OBJECTIVE: To do this frickin job and make sum frickin moneyz.
Well, I have to disagree with this. If someone said, “Chinese people drive bad”, this would not make them a racist. Nor would saying, “man, Chinese people are smart”. Stereotyping does not equal racism. Not the common definition anyway, of believing that one race is “better” than another. However, I do think different races are better or worse at different things, whether they be from nature or nurture. It’s just something taboo to talk about or do studies on. Scientists still do studies on the differences between the way men and womens brains think. Why isn’t this taboo?
Why do some people only hear what they want to? I’ve re-written at least twice that it was only with all things being equal and not having time to interview everyone. This of course with my experiences living in NJ and ten years in the service, that blacks are lazier, less motivated, and more likely to talk “street” in the workplace.
On what do I base it? Well I suppose I base it on EEOC regulations which say:
Oddly enough (and I know you aren’t going to believe this) but it’s never even occurred to me to discriminate based upon a name. Personally, I have enough problems finding qualified applicants in my field, that I’d take an Kang and Kodos if they were qualified.
I do find it amusing that you also posted in the U of M thread that all qualified applicant should be taken regardless of race, and that their application procedures are racist.