In the thread where I outlined my views on the 2006 trends in race and racism. A few people challenged this statement:
There seems to be a sense among many white Americans that any programs designed to remedy the effects of racism and segregation discriminate against whites. This stems in part from the false belief that opportunities are equal and that racial and ethnic minorities somehow have great advantages over whites.
On my site, one commenter suggested that the second sentence was debatable, but the actual research shows fairly consistent patterns of discrimination.
Let me provide one very blatant example of racial discrimination documented by Professor Devah Pager. Pager won the American Sociological Association dissertation award in 2003 for her dissertation, which examined how a person’s race and criminal background affected their likelihood of getting job call backs. Pager created an experiment where black and white male testers with similar resumes were sent out to apply for low wage jobs. Pager assigned testers resumes with or without felony convictions, and they went into the field to conduct tests in the city of Milwaukee. You can read part of the study here (PDF)., Pager found White testers with felony convictions were MORE likely to get callbacks from employers than Black testers without felony convictions. Here is a results table from Pager’s dissertation conducted in Milwaukee:
The solid black bar represents those with felony convictions, and the grey bar represents those without felony convictions. Recently Pager and Bruce Western conducted a similar study in New York city (PDF). The findings were fairly similar, but they also included Latinos, who fared better than blacks and worse than whites. Pager and Western go on to say,
In this study, Calibrating the magnitude of the race effects to the effects of a felony conviction presents a disturbing picture. Blacks remain at the very end of the hiring queue, even in relation to (white) applicants who have just been released from prison. The results here point to the striking persistence of race in the allocation of employment opportunities. Employers faced with large numbers of applicants and little time to evaluate them seem to view race as an adequate means by which to weed out undesirable applicants upon first review.
I don’t know what evidence of racism in the workplace could possibly be more apparent. It probably doesn’t surprise people that felons fair worse than non-felons of the same race, but the fact that Black men without criminal records are viewed similar to white men with felony convictions reveals the strong impact of race in just one stage of the hiring process.
Given this evidence, what can we do to stop this discrimination? (Note to Robert. The links include more thorough discussions of the experiment for your reading pleasure.)
Pingback: Bradford Plumer
I think that people ascribe a lot of problems to racism that in fact have other causes. But I’d never deny that there’s racism in America and that there are not problems that can be ascribed to it.
Have there been any critics of this study?
Interesting study. It looks like she did a very thorough job. I’d say that this study is a strong indication of racial bias in hiring, in Milwaukee anyway. This shows a differential outcome, but (unlike my banking example) there isn’t an immediately evident mechanism for the discrimination to be rational.
I’d like to see a study done from the other direction. Plant a mole in a hiring office and collect information about the decision process, and see what justifications the decisionmaker employs in the sorting process.
Robert,
Even in your banking example, if rejections were randomly distributed among black applicants for loans, rather than the least qualified of the qualified black applicants being rejected, then the result of no difference in creditworthiness of accepted loan candidates would still prevail. Without a better knowledge of how race enters into loan officer’s decision making (which we appear to agree it does), there is no reason to assume that they are somehow correctly weeding out unqualified black applicants who look qualified by any objective standard.
if rejections were randomly distributed among black applicants for loans, rather than the least qualified of the qualified black applicants being rejected, then the result of no difference in creditworthiness of accepted loan candidates would still prevail
This seems unlikely. Are you assuming that the screening and qualification process has zero probative value? If the process has some value in screening the genuinely unqualified – those who are likely to default – then applying it randomly to one group of candidates but not another would seem counter-productive. It would result in the discriminated-against group having a higher rate of failure.
But in principle we observe little or no difference in failure rates, among the population of people actually approved. Simplicity suggests that for the approved population, at any rate, the banks are doing the best they can, across the board, to approve only good candidates for mortgages.
In the disapproved population, there could be unseen discrimination. The simple test for that would be whether there exists a substantial pool of black mortgage-seekers who are persistently turned down for loans despite their formal qualifications for the mortgage.
Since lenders have every motivation to make every loan they profitably can, and since genuinely qualified black people are just as profitable as g.q. white people of the same class, the existence of the unserved population would be almost prima facie evidence of discrimination. We aren’t quite catching OJ in the act, but…
There could be an unserved white population as well, so I guess it would be the ratios of those populations that would indicate where discrimination is/was occurring.
Do such populations exist?
Now, you ask “What can we do to stop this?” Certainly such behavior on the part of employers is a) wrong and b) illegal.
The first question I have is how can we take advantage of the latter; what laws already exist to deal with this kind of thing, is there a problem with the way they’re being applied, and what can be done to fix that?
The second question I have is how can we take advantage of the former? Since we agree that it’s wrong, could we publicize a given employer’s bias? Mind you, the study sample seems valid for me to analyze the employers as a group, but not individually. I would think that to fairly accuse a given employer of bias you’d have to run more than one or two people of each race in. I’m thinking of the police blotter that runs in some papers; “Joe Blow was picked up for soliciting a prostitute last night”. It’s a hell of a deterrent, I should think.
Interesting article. If the researcher needs another city to study, I’ve got one. Oh boy, do I have one.
Scratch that, two.
And in New York. Is your assumption that the study authors just happened to have the bad luck to choose two entirely unrepresentative cities which are the only remaining alcoves of racism in the USA?
I agree that pure randomness is unlikely, but Charles is right that you’re mistaken to assume that no difference in creditworthiness proves no racism.
Let’s assume that there are six black loan applicants – Alison, Bruce, Cathy, David, Edith, and Frank. Alison and Bruce are both objectively unqualified for a loan, and get rejected for that reason. In addition, Cathy and David are objectively qualified for a loan, but get rejected because loaning institutions are biased against black applicants. Finally, Edith and Frank are objectively qualified for loans, and get loans.
Assuming the same bank is also successful at weeding out objectively unqualified white applicants for loans, in this situation it’s likely that both black and white loan-receivers will be equally likely to successfully pay back their loans. Nonetheless, the bank is discriminating against black loan applicants.
Of course, there are also ways in which non-white loan applicants are in effect discriminated against which have nothing to do with the bank itself practicing discrimination. If discrimination limits black and hispanic access to the best jobs — and it’s fairly clear it does — then that will have an unfair impact on access to credit, even if the banks don’t discriminate. Similarly, if blacks and hispanics have less access to wealth — because of factors like lack of family wealth (which in turn has to do with historic discrimination) and redlining (both current and historic), that will have an unfair impact on access to credit.
On second thought, my response to Robert here was obnoxious. Sorry about that, Robert.
But there is a kind of catch-22 I’ve encountered in my past discussions of discrimination studies with Conservatives.
There are extremely tight and specific studies – such as audit studies – which, due to their extremely labor-intensive nature and the limits of funding, pretty much have to be concentrated on a small group. These studies tend to show that discrimination exists beyond any question, but to generate the response from conservatives that because they are local studies, we cannot use them to draw any conclusions about discrimination in general.
Then there are studies conducted using existing national data sources. These studies, by definition, are not as tightly-focused, but generally find that there’s significant differences in outcomes that cannot be explained by any measured difference in ability or qualifications – that is, holding factors like education, experience, work hours, etc.., constant, non-whites simply get paid less and promoted less than whites. But these studies are often dismissed by conservatives because – unlike a local audit study – they cannot control for all hypothetical unmeasured factors.
The conclusion they tend to default to is “let’s act as if there’s no discrimination unless it’s been absolutely proven.” But considering the local and national results together, the weight of the evidence clearly supports the conclusion that discrimination remains a serious problem. Conservative eagerness to make excuses for the results of study after study, while refusing to advocate any effective solutions or admit that whites are seriously advantaged, is inexcusable.
But hopefully Robert does not fall into this pattern. :-)
I want to post a fuller response, but I don’t have time. Let me post one really quick point:
This study shows a pervasive disparity in hiring for low-wage jobs; I think extrapolating to other cities is almost certainly reasonable (here I’m with Ampersand) but that extrapolating to, say, tenure-track faculty jobs is not likely to be reasonable.
Yeah, but those entry-level jobs are important. That’s where people get their start on the ladder.
In my city and county, both Latinos and African-Americans are over represented in part-time positions with no benefits, low wages and really no chance of expanding to a full-time position, whereas they are under represented in full-time, benefitted positions.
And after watching the sixth Black or Latino employee in city management positions get fired, demoted or forced to resign in a little over a year, it’s damn sobering.
Studies are nice, but when you watch it up close, let alone experience it, it’s an entirely different thing.
Radfem, the problem with your first paragraph is that the over-representation of minorities in part-time/no-benefit/etc. McJobs can be a due to issues of education and training, etc.
Now, the educational deficiencies can be due to racism; I can accept that as a premise to be investigated (and I’m sure it has been at some point). That in turn could be due to disproportionate representation of single-parent or poverty-ridden families, etc., and that could also be due in part to racism. But the job situation, while having roots in racism, could be a second or third order effect of racism, and not direct racism on the part of employers.
And yes, this is what Amp was talking about when he said “But these studies are often dismissed by conservatives because – unlike a local audit study – they cannot control for all hypothetical unmeasured factors.” But just because it’s conservatives making the objection doesn’t mean that the objection isn’t valid.
Distinctions of this nature are important; you have to know where the cause of problem is if you want to apply your resources in the most efficient and effective way to solve it.
“And after watching the sixth Black or Latino employee in city management positions get fired, demoted or forced to resign in a little over a year, it’s damn sobering.”
This, OTOH, is a different matter; I presume we’re talking about people already in a job and performing at standard. What’s up with that?
Interesting discussion. My first reaction to the studies is “D’oh!”. Like hires like, and HR people, even if black, are going to take their cues from the top officers, who are overwhelmingly likely to be majority white, majority male. One black hire, fine. Eight in a row, not fine, unless the job is deemed “not good enough for white” (minimum wage janitor) or the job is a service job serving exclusively minority clientele. And the top officers don’t have to articulate a racial preference, the minority HR person will intuit that in order to rise to the top, you have to look or act white, and that too much minority hiring just emphasizes that the HR person is a minority.
I am reading Kenji Toshino’s (sic) book, Covering, about pressure to conform to social pressure (Dress for Success, no high-style braids or dreads, women not too openly showing their status as mothers, gays not noticeably out at work (not admitting to social/family life), Asians using lightening creams, etc).
you have to look or act white
What manner of behavior conforms to “look or act white”? And what are the alternatives? What would you say conforms to “look or act black”?
RonF, do you really not have a clue what manner of behavior conforms to “look or act white”? I suppose you’ve never heard something like “he didn’t sound black on the phone”?
You’re willing to admit that their probably is racism in educational opportunities, in poverty, in family status, as well as in hiring. Not surprisingly, there is a vast range of studies to support these conclusions. But you really don’t want to concede that there is personal racism, rather than some sort of generalized instituional racism. Why?
I responded to this at Rachel’s Tavern already, but thought I’d put in my two cents here because the “blind applicant” solution, already demonstrated to have greatly mitigated hiring in US orchestras, has not been brought up.
Some twenty plus years ago, most US orchestras were comprised almost entirely of men. Then a miracle happened. Err. Then some bright boy came up with the idea of auditions behind a screen so that the person choosing the musician could not see the person’s race or gender. The percentage of women in US orchestras skyrocketed, and the field has nearly reached gender parity in terms of hiring.
A simple black magic marker wielded by an administrative person before the first selection process leading to call backs, eliminating all personal information including name and neighborhood, would eliminate much of this bias, at this stage of the hiring. Add a competency based test or similar measure, administered blindly either through a computer or again an administrative person, and two steps in the hiring process have been race and gender blinded. At this point, at the face to face interview, you’ll see a lot more people of color and women making the final cut, and with two opportunities for isms eliminated, the field has been, though not completely, greatly leveled.
The city manager doesn’t like people of color in management positions. Although the Latino human resources director had to go because he wouldn’t engage in cronyism in hiring. There’s two more to go actually. The Fair Employment and Housing is doing an investigation into it after hearing from different employees.
Amp said:
YES YES YES!!!! That is my gripe it all boils down to people saying “Well since you can’t prove that this is racism, then there really is no racism happening at least at the level you say”. This and similar type arguments are not so far a jump from the type of argument folks like Robert use to say“Well really, what you say is racism may not really be racism” leading to the “Well the racism you guys are talking about just doesn’t work, let’s US talk about the real issues.”
I should add Robert, old man, it ain’t personal, it’s business… you provide the best examples of what I’m talking about.
That’s an, er, interesting reading of what I wrote. I’m not sure how “cultural Marxism is idiotic, and anti-racism that relies on cultural Marxism is doomed” equals “that’s not really racism” and/or “racism isn’t the real issue”. But whatever.
For the sake of argument, could you explain what you mean by “anti-racism that relies on cultural Marxism”?
Arghhh, I meant to say for the sake of understanding what you meant could you please explain what you mean by “anti-racism that relies on cultural Marxism”?
I mean what I originally said; anti-racism that is bound inextricably to leftist economics and social theories that cannot gain traction in mainstream America.
So that it’s somewhat clearer when folks like myself critique the racism that is embedded within the scopes of capitalism (that utilizes exploitation) and democracy (when it dilutes minorities) whether it is practiced here in the U.S. or in Nigeria, we’re aren’t appealing enough to mainstream America because our arguments are Marxist (even though many of us do not identify as Marxist or Lefty)?
So how can we make our criticisms more valid so that it is palatable to mainstream America? How can we incorporate more righty-economics and politics (since the left ones you mentioned lack validity)?
RonF, do you really not have a clue what manner of behavior conforms to “look or act white”? I suppose you’ve never heard something like “he didn’t sound black on the phone”?
I never said I didn’t have a clue about that. Please don’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. I asked a question, which you have yet to answer.
And, no, I’ve never heard anyone use the phrase you quoted, or anything like it.
So that it’s somewhat clearer when folks like myself critique the racism that is embedded within the scopes of capitalism (that utilizes exploitation)
Do you mean to say that capitalism automatically exploits people? Or that it can be used to exploit people? Or something else?
and democracy (when it dilutes minorities)
What does “dilutes minorities” mean?
So how can we make our criticisms more valid so that it is palatable to mainstream America?
Abandon Marxism and go back to the civil rights critiques formulated before Marxism made its run on the academy in the 1960s. There’s a hundred years of anti-racist activism that made big strides with the population of the US; it’s still a viable, if no longer vital, set of concepts. I think there are other reasons for the stalled civil rights movement post-1965, but this is one of the big ones.
“Given this evidence, what can we do to stop this discrimination?”
Althgough this question seems to have been lost in the shuffle: Not much, i don’t think, except to educate and wait. Or to train more folks who are applying to act differently, though that’s also a difficult and problematice option.
this response stems from honesty and not wishful thinking, though I personally would prefer that my honest assessment was different.
but IMO it is extraordinarily difficult to disentrench years, decades, or near-lifetimes of mental “organization” of the type that “blacks are ___” and “whites are ____” and so on. The 60s weren’t so long ago. I don’t think that retraining the people in curent hiring-decision positions will ever occur.
I also don’t think it’s realistic (for a variety of reasons including enforcement issues and Constitutional problems) to legislateracism issues at the personal level.
Hell if there were an easy solution, it’d be solved.
RonF, if by asking, “What manner of behavior conforms to ‘look or act white’?” you didn’t mean, “I don’t have any idea what it means to look or act white,” then I don’t think you should have asked the question. If you aren’t asking for information, then you are either trying to make a point by some kind of drawn-out Socratic-method procedure, or you are just dragging things out.
(I never read this blog, I just saw annoyingness in the comments.)
I have seen the term “acting white” used in different ways. It has been used to indicate conformance to certain kinds of dress and haircuts. I have seen it used to indicate conformance to use of the English language in various kinds of ways, and I have seen it used to indicate dissaproval of getting good grades, getting a college education, or seeking a job with a regular paycheck.
Some of these are stereotypical, some are not. But, I don’t know how YOU meant it, so I’m asking.
And what kind of behavior constitutes not “acting white”?
The 60s weren’t so long ago.
Well, yeah, they were. Thirty-seven years ago, by my count, but I was a liberal arts major so it’s possible my math is off.
Hilzoy, at Obsidian Wings, recently wrote a post based on the same study. The comments start off pretty well too.
Hundreds of years of a legacy filled with slavery, genocide, and outright disrespect versus 37 years of court-mandated civil rights?
No, mythago, it really wasn’t that long ago.
37 years isn’t that long…
Think of it this way: a big proportion of the people who are doing hiring are probably older. Many of them are probably in their late 40s or 50s.
Anyone who is 50 years old spent their first 13 years in a different country, race-wise. And those are some important years. The earlier years are formative, after which people selectively perceive and mostly strengthen their beliefs.