But the two selected here included one of the most easily refutted: the "obvious black names" sampling; and one of the most specious rambling associations I've ever seen.

The "obvious black names" study is a dumb one because it doesn't factor in embarassment. Very non-normal names can be difficult to pronounce, which means many people who are uncertain about how to say the name will put this in the back of the list. Asians - very clearly first generation Asians - will typically offer a nickname or a pronunciation key on their applications... those that do get called a hell of a lot more than those that DON'T. If racism played a role, then clearly both would see their calls come in a roughly equal rates. That study was basically debunked and laughed at the same month it was released... YEARS ago.

As for the soccer games. For one, we're talking about racism NOW and you provide a study that started in the 70's? Huh?

Secondly, the minorities fought their way into sports and are now quite comfortable there (well, they're still very under-represented in coaching... but this dumb piece didn't get into that.)

Anyway, if you're going to say something about racism actually do some real work and look into it. Don't waste our time with a puff piece that pulls out some hack or irrelevent ancient study and say "see racism is bad"... We know that.

If anything I'd guess the only reason for this piece is a support for Hillary, by making those who have honest concerns about continuing racism look bad for having a dumb and irrelevent mouthpiece.

'The "obvious black names" study is a dumb one because it doesn't factor in embarassment.'

?????

WTF does that mean?

taquineeeeeeesha jackson isn't gonna be a white girl.

when the list of "racial names" became public.

Yes there were "Latoya" and "Leroy", but there was also "Shyniquae" and bullshit like that... The study, if I recall, showed a 50% over-representation in the callbacks of the "white" names.

If you've ever had to make a call to a person and all you have in front of you is a name... and the call isn't MANDITORY, you are going to not call the names you can't pronounce. Period. That is a factor that is entirely independent of racism. So, since the researchers decided to put improbable names like "Leigbraun" in their study to over-emphasize the "strangeness" of the name, they made their study worthless...

When I was volunteer coordinator for the Dean campaign, I instructed the volunteers to skip a name they couldn't pronounce... We were calling registered democrats in South Carolina, which means half of the people we were INTENDING to call were African-Americans, and we'd skip a name that looked like some of the crazy things they had in their study. That's not racism, that's embarrasment over not knowing how to pronounce your wierd fucking name.

Might there also be a more subtle concern regarding the most exotic "black names?" Namely, that the person is flaunting their race? I can imagine an employer -- of any ethnicity -- suspicious of a candidate who might be too much on the "ethnocentric" side. Isn't the main challenge of the resume game to eliminate as many unpromising resumes as quickly as you can and just get to the more promising ones? Whether it's embarrassment over a mispronunciation, or concerns over personality, a weird name is just one more excuse to get your resume trashed.

That's ludicrous.

If you are given a stack of resumes for callback, you call them ALL back. What's going on here is that HR is pre-screening the resumes prior to handing them off for callback.

And part of that pre-screening is done based on racial bias.

Other organizations have done similar studies. Ms. Magazine did one based on hair color (they included a headshot) and they found that the types of jobs blondes, redheads and brunettes got callbacks for varied along the very lines of the cultural mythos about those hair colors.

Since names are given by parents, how would a name be an indicator of "flouting" one's race?

Furthermore, what would be wrong with "flouting" one's race? Mispronunciation fear is not something that makes a resume unpromising. Anyone who has done any amount of hiring will tell you that. They will also tell you that names DO give you indicators of who you are likely to hire.

*** MANDITORY ***

#1 Learn to spell "mandatory."

#2 You could simply call them "Ms. Smith" or "Mr. Jones"

#3 Your post is one of the dumbest I've seen.

Degs, I think your quotation marks indicate that you, at least, no this.

"Flouting" one's race would be to disregard it -- if you are "flouting" the law, you are a lawbreaker.

"Flaunting" one's race would be to show it off -- "If you've got it, flaunt it."

The semiliteracy of most of America is a trial for the truly literate.

Mea culpa. My error. You are correct, I meant to use Flaunting instead of Flouting. I know better.

tundra:

Most applications for jobs today ask for race, gender, and veteran status to be identified even if voluntary. Companies get credit for interviewing minorities.

degsme:

However, applications now ask for the voluntary disclosure of race, gender, and veteran status. Companies get credit for taking their applications and interviewing minorities.

That's if you fill out a job application. The only times I have filled out standardized job apps is on the day of my first interview. Cover letters plus Resume don't contain that information

degsme:

If you use career builder or monster, most companies force you to their website and have you fill out an application and answer the questions before you get to submit the resume. It has changed a tad. Companies are graded on how many minorities they attract, take applications from, and talk too.

Not quite - I changed jobs within the last 24 mos and I used monster. I still got the job via Resume and Cover Letter.