Here’s the original paper. (requires Acrobat Reader)
I’m reading it and would love to hear folk’s positions on the research design.
Here’s the original paper. (requires Acrobat Reader)
I’m reading it and would love to hear folk’s positions on the research design.
One thing this study may really shows is that if you want the most callbacks in a job search – change your name to Kristen or Todd.
This paper drew a lot of comment at Brad DeLong’s site last week. However, at least some of the people who had objections to the design of the study seemed to weary of being accused of racism.
So, a caveat – the conclusion of this study was obviously important to many on the left. However, one might object to the study design without believing that racism does not exist, or that affirmative action is a bad thing. OK?
Anyway, a quick summary of objections from the comments, with the “you are racist” rejoinder:
– What’s in a name? The authors say this is a test of “white” names versus “black” names. It may have been a test of “conventional” names versus “unusual” names – “Aisha”, we learn, is a typical black female name, and not, for example, a Japanese consumer products company. Who knew?
– Affirmative action discount: colleges admit blacks preferentially. This is common knowledge, and we have a recent Supreme court case to show it. Do some professors also grade blacks preferentially? If some employers think it is even a possibility, than the “equal” GPA’s in this study are no longer equal, anf the two candidate are no longer equally qualified.
Racist alert – anyone who even considers the possibility that a college professor would do this is racist. Of course, the underlying belief is not as to the capability of blacks, but as to the grading behavior of liberal college profs. Still, it is racist.
More affirmative action discount – some employers, and certainly the Civil Service in some areas, hire blacks preferentially. So, when an employer sees three years work experience in, e.g., the civil service, it is not an equal credential for black and white.
EEOC discount – not every hiring decision works out. Who has greater legal protection if it is necessary to fire them – a black employee, or a white employee? If an employer thinks it is even slightly less risky (in terms of lawsuits) to fire whites, then the candidates are not equal.
Again, this reflects an employers view of society, not a view of the ability of black people.
Also, one could accept these as flaws in the study and still believe that, on balance, affirmative action and the EEOC are good ideas.
Let the games begin!
Tom, you seem to be reading this study as a study of “racism,” and nearly all of your responses are pointing out how the results don’t necessarily indicate racism in employers’ hearts (e.g., the candidates are not equal because of the EEOC, therefore even a non-racist employer might prefer the white candidate). I think your whole approach shows a fundimental misunderstanding of this study.
Unless the study claims to speak to employers motivations, none of the things you cite (except perhaps the name issue) are “flaws in the study.” A study like this measures actions, not motives; the study shows employers discriminate against blacks, but it doesn’t say anything about why employers do so.
Your objections (except for the name one) are just a bunch of guesses as to “why” employers discriminate. Nothing you’ve said contradicts the findings of this study; what motivates discrimination isn’t something this study claimed to measure.
Good point! Since the title of Brad’s post was something “Yes, Virginia, there is racism in America”, that was where the conversation drifted.
However, if you are saying that this study demonstrates discrimination, but not racism, well, that is a level of subtlety that eluded other readers. Nathan Newman had a post on this subject trumpeting the results as showing racism. He has a great site, and you would think I could find the post, but it eludes me now. The date would be the same as the Krueger piece, or a day later. Attrios also exclaimed “racism”, if I remember.
SO, discrimination without racism? Equal resumes are not perceived as equal? That is my point – that folks may have no ill-will at all towards different racial groups, but do look at their resumes in different lights.
I have (finally, Dec 23) posted on this, and link to two articles discussing how preferential admissions leads to preferential grading.
Well, I am sure of a lot of things that may not be true. If Nathan Newman posted on this, I still can’t find it.
However, here is a nice quote from the CalPundit:
Sheesh. I thought conservatives were opposed to identity politics like this. Why is it so hard for them to admit that there is still genuine racism left in America?
http://calpundit.blogspot.com/2002_12_15_calpundit_archive.html#86237792
So, I think some folk are taking this study as evidence of racism, rather than, for example, evidence that affirmative action has undermined such signals of achievement for minorities as good grades from a good school.