And the way it is done is through "holistic review" process, see:
Excerpt: From colleges’ perspective, “holistic” is just shorthand for, we make the decisions we make, and would rather not be asked to spell out each one. It’s a way for schools to discreetly take various sensitive factors—“overrepresented” minorities, or students whose families might donate a gym—into account.
Must be nice to be so privileged you can make up nice names for plain old racism.
You mean discrimiate against Asian and white people for flawed diversity and equity reasons.
Most of the black people who end up in these universities are privilleged children of immigrants.
Those black faces you see around you are from Nigeria, not Chicago.
That's an interesting claim - you gotta source for that?
Charles Murray's "Facing Reality". It includes many tables of statistics that may interest you.
Note that despite a lot of anger toward him, I've read several of his books, and he goes to great lengths to state that he doesn't believe we should discriminate against people based on their race. I highly recommend reading his books rather than listening to commentary about them.
don't get me wrong, discrimination is bad, but let's not act as if discrimination in getting into Harvard is in any way comparable to not being able to get a callback at McDonalds because you're black (the food industry had the highest white/black callback discrimination according to Figure 9 in the paper).
> You didnt notice the massive up tick in pushes for diversity in your place of work?
> You don't see how it's comparable? They're both instances of racism you dolt.
Also, anyone know if there a reason why "Black" is capitalized in the paper but "white" is not?
While its not my personal preferred style, the NY Times has recently adopted this style (from an earlier one which capitalized neither) and explains it reasonably well (and other explanations of users of the style have generally been similar, so its what I take as, in outline, the usual explanation):
Thanks, and yikes, I had no idea this was a thing. So if I wrote "White" in the same way some might write "Black", people might get the wrong idea? To be honest, this change just seems like more petty ways to divide us.
There is no “like no one else does”; the argument is that Black identity (particularly in America) is essentially an ethnic identity produced by shared experience, the same as other ethnic identities. The distinctive part is that the shared experience centrally includes American White supremacy which, among other things, actively erased the preexisting ethnic identities of the black people whom it made Black.
If you look at it from a people perspective, it doesn't make sense because people want to be their own individual, not lumped into a category because everyone experiences things differently. I see this as an artificial construction that is usually argued against.
There are certainly similarities, but then, no one denies that “Jewish” is a national/ethnic/cultural identifier that should be capitalized, even if racial or physically descriptive identifiers generally shouldn't and even if “Jewish” might also be considered a racial identifier.
There are arguably even closer similiarities with the various peoples with roots in the pre-Columbian population of the Americas. But, again, whatever label is used for various collections of those people, one rarely sees arguments against capitalizing the label chosen.
Identities are arbitrary, but they aren't ethnic unless they are rooted in an ethnicity, which is a shared culture.
Because, the best cure for perceived systemic racism is _actual_ systemic racism. It's all absurd.
What is sad is when people hide in the shelter of group identity, instead of being responsible for their own speech and actions. It's often not in anyone's best interests, and distracts from clarity.
Slavery, oppression, and loss are not the only ways in which a shared culture can be formed.
No, that they share an identity forged in the experience of slavery and the discriminatory laws afterward, and in many cases that's all the ethnic identity they have because their ancestors preexisting cultural heritage and identity was forcefully prevented from being preserved.
For example, some of the first names are "Lashonda", "Lakeisha", "Takwanda" in the "Black" list, whereas the "white" list includes names like "Geoffrey", "Kristen", "Jennifer". If the perceived social status of the names isn't matched, that could invalidate their results.
As a follow-up, it would be interesting to do a survey on the perceived social status of each of the names they used to see how that might have influenced the results.
What I'm saying is that even if that were true, unless you're saying only "objectively" Black and White people are to judge the social status of Black and White names (such that each race judges their own name) - it would end up being no different than the exercise in the paper.
Let's say Denise is an "high status" Black name and LeShawn is a "low status" Black name. "Billy" is low status White and "Alexander" is high status.
Even if you knew this you'd need to know how the other race perceives the name since that's ultimately what's being judged here, hence it would be moot.
And that could be done through research surveys to account for that variable in this research.
Perhaps if Black people and White people had a "pure" view of other Blacks and Whites, unaffected by history you could do what you're saying.
Another example, to split racism from classism but with the confounding variable of national origin: "Lashonda Brown" vs "Abena Nwachukwu" (this is an actual last name that I Googled). On the resume, both could be given membership in a "Women's Society of Some University" to indicate gender, and same for other characteristics.
Edit: Note that even the SPELLING of "Geoffrey" vs "Jeffrey" vs "Jeff" may indicate something about social class or background.
Random source, I didn't keep all my tabs open:
In other words, you're trying to separate racism from classism, but race and class are already inexorably linked to begin with. Any perception of class to the name would already be influenced by historical racism, for better or for worse.
And Black is capitalized for the reason Swedish is capitalized.
In other words, if a "white name" is as unique as a black name, does it receive the same amount of bias, or different?
"We study the results of a massive nationwide correspondence experiment sending more than 83,000 fictitious applications with randomized characteristics to geographically dispersed jobs posted by 108 of the largest U.S. employers.
Distinctively Black names reduce the probability of employer contact by 2.1 percentage points relative to distinctively white names. The magnitude of this racial gap in contact rates differs substantially across firms, exhibiting a between-company standard deviation of 1.9 percentage points.
Despite an insignificant average gap in contact rates between male and female applicants, we find a between-company standard deviation in gender contact gaps of 2.7 percentage points, revealing that some firms favor male applicants while others favor women.
Company-specific racial contact gaps are temporally and spatially persistent, and negatively correlated with firm profitability, federal contractor status, and a measure of recruiting centralization. Discrimination exhibits little geographical dispersion, but two digit industry explains roughly half of the cross-firm variation in both racial and gender contact gaps. Contact gaps are highly concentrated in particular companies, with firms in the top quintile of racial discrimination responsible for nearly half of lost contacts to Black applicants in the experiment.
Controlling false discovery rates to the 5% level, 23 individual companies are found to discriminate against Black applicants. [See Appendix] Our findings establish that systemic illegal discrimination is concentrated among a select set of large employers, many of which can be identified with high confidence using large scale inference methods."
I'm open to being convinced that Census data for racially associated names is common knowledge among recruiters, but I'm not there yet.
Presumably this mapping comes from freedmen taking surnames from their former owners, and german settlers being relatively late to America, and chiefly in the northern states.
For white - [Jack, Conner, Luke Scott] + [Anything Italian, Smith, James, Anything German, etc]
I actually did not believe him since he's also in the tech industry and didn't think such things would happen for Software Engineers - alas the table at the end (Figure 9) shows a small difference.
I wonder why the food product industry has such a huge difference.
I think we take that to mean that it's an absolute 2.1% reduction, and if it's also 9% relative reduction, then that would have black applicants getting a response 23.3% of the time, and white applicants 25.4%.
>> "an effect equal to 9% of the Black mean contact rate"
Did they correct for the confounding variable of perceived social class of each of the names? (Similar to what someone else said, I wonder if they checked... not for uniqueness, because some names are unique but familiar to other names, but rather for recency of immigration, which can actually have both positive and negative effects I would imagine. For example, someone with a distinctive first + last name combination for a particular place might seem more "interesting" to interview.)
Even a change in the presentation of the same name can indicate social class... Bill vs Will vs William, with middle initial or without, etc. Also hyphenated last names.
Also, they included so many other things in the resumes... club memberships, etc., it makes me wonder whether the results were influenced by that.
Even so, let's say the response is 23% vs 25% by race as they seem to say. That's obviously not good if it's due to racism for example, but it doesn't sound like an absolute prevention from working in an industry.
Which first names seem uncommon to you?
Black names are perceived as lower class because they're associated with black people. And education and work history are stronger class signals.
Which names do you think sound like immigrants?
You looked at the names they used. So you know they didn't use different forms of the same name. Or hyphenated last names.
They calculated the effects of each characteristic. They found discrimination against men and women balanced out. They found modest but significant age discrimination. And they found club memberships had no significant effect.
Absolute prevention is a straw man.
> The internship program has a focus of providing development opportunities to students from groups historically underrepresented in tech, through technical training and professional development.
This sounds like they blatantly violate the Civil Rights Act. I wonder how much discrimination is caused by people trying to "make up" for affirmative action (not that I think this is ok).
Also, I'm not sure why you think focusing on "historically underrepresented" groups would be illegal lol.
Because by "underrepresented groups" they mean race and sex. You'll see far more children of African immigrants than people who graduated from inner city school districts.
what exactly is your qualm?
I was proving my first claim about what they mean by "underrepresented groups." They literally said that they'll give priority to underrepresented minorities or sexes. That is a clear case of discrimination, which is outlawed by the Civil Rights Act.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong. You should consult a lawyer, you might have a huge suit on your hands.
Yes from their own job application.
> Student Training in Engineering Program (STEP) is a development program committed to addressing issues surrounding diversity in our company and in the technology industry, and as such students who are a member of a group that is historically underrepresented in the technology industry will receive priority in the selection process. This group includes women, ethnic minorities and students with disabilities
> what exactly is your qualm?
That this violates the Civil Rights Act?
Not to mention that their list was not exhaustive. There are other groups that are unrepresented other than the ones they mentioned.