White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo was paid 70 percent more than a black woman for the same job

[laughing dog]

If my memory serves me correct, I have seen you hand wave away results that do not depend on socioeconomic status (black sounding names on cvs get fewer call backs than non-black sounding names with the same cv) and complain about how studies do control for socioeconomic status.

Reality: Black-sounding names are associated with substantially lower educational levels.

Interesting, I know I don't make that connection at all. But this is a perfect example of your willingness to pointlessly quibble about legitimate research in order to hand wave away legitimate evidence. Emily Lake's response dissects your poor reasoning. The "reasoning" driving the bigotry/racism is not relevant since every person with a black sounding name does not have lower educational levels.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If my memory serves me correct, I have seen you hand wave away results that do not depend on socioeconomic status (black sounding names on cvs get fewer call backs than non-black sounding names with the same cv) and complain about how studies do control for socioeconomic status.

Reality: Black-sounding names are associated with substantially lower educational levels.

Interesting, I know I don't make that connection at all. But this is a perfect example of your willingness to pointlessly quibble about legitimate research in order to hand wave away legitimate evidence. Emily Lake's response dissects your poor reasoning. The "reasoning" driving the bigotry/racism is not relevant since every person with a black sounding name does not have lower educational levels.

The point is that the discrimination is about names which people have a valid reason to associate with inferior workers. That doesn't mean there would be a different reaction between a white and black person in person. In today's marketplace companies are flooded with resumes, they get winnowed very aggressively.

 

[ZiprHead]

Interesting, I know I don't make that connection at all. But this is a perfect example of your willingness to pointlessly quibble about legitimate research in order to hand wave away legitimate evidence. Emily Lake's response dissects your poor reasoning. The "reasoning" driving the bigotry/racism is not relevant since every person with a black sounding name does not have lower educational levels.

The point is that the discrimination is about names which people have a valid reason to associate with inferior workers. That doesn't mean there would be a different reaction between a white and black person in person. In today's marketplace companies are flooded with resumes, they get winnowed very aggressively.

WOW!

 

[ruby sparks]

Interesting, I know I don't make that connection at all. But this is a perfect example of your willingness to pointlessly quibble about legitimate research in order to hand wave away legitimate evidence. Emily Lake's response dissects your poor reasoning. The "reasoning" driving the bigotry/racism is not relevant since every person with a black sounding name does not have lower educational levels.

The point is that the discrimination is about names which people have a valid reason to associate with inferior workers. That doesn't mean there would be a different reaction between a white and black person in person. In today's marketplace companies are flooded with resumes, they get winnowed very aggressively.

WOW!

What's also odd is that in the past he's resorted to a contrary reason for saying the studies are unreliable, that the names alone don't distinguish racially. Now apparently, they do.

And in this sort of case, he can't cite his favourite objection either, a supposed lack of controls.

His objections over time clearly aren't based on rational consistency, but on something else, namely, an obvious and ongoing tendency, any which way, to minimise and in certain ways deny the existence or extent of the racism that still exists, albeit to a lesser degree than in the past, and more covertly.

 

[laughing dog]

Interesting, I know I don't make that connection at all. But this is a perfect example of your willingness to pointlessly quibble about legitimate research in order to hand wave away legitimate evidence. Emily Lake's response dissects your poor reasoning. The "reasoning" driving the bigotry/racism is not relevant since every person with a black sounding name does not have lower educational levels.

The point is that the discrimination is about names which people have a valid reason to associate with inferior workers.

The response to the application is based on the name which represents a person. Everything else in those studies is controlled - the only variable is the name. It appears you are claiming that it is not racist to think that someone with a black sounding name is an inferior worker. Thinking that a particular race means an inferior worker is a textbook example of racism in action.

So here we have an example where all SES factors are controlled, the evidence clearly points to bigoty/racism as the influencing factor but you are still making excuses to dismiss the result you don't like.

That doesn't mean there would be a different reaction between a white and black person in person. In today's marketplace companies are flooded with resumes, they get winnowed very aggressively.

First of all, that research was not done in today's marketplace. More importantly, the abundance of applicants to positions does not justify the application of racist standards.

 

[Emily Lake]

Interesting, I know I don't make that connection at all. But this is a perfect example of your willingness to pointlessly quibble about legitimate research in order to hand wave away legitimate evidence. Emily Lake's response dissects your poor reasoning. The "reasoning" driving the bigotry/racism is not relevant since every person with a black sounding name does not have lower educational levels.

The point is that the discrimination is about names which people have a valid reason to associate with inferior workers. That doesn't mean there would be a different reaction between a white and black person in person. In today's marketplace companies are flooded with resumes, they get winnowed very aggressively.

That's about the dumbest defense of obvious and egregious racial discriminations I've ever heard. I usually fall more on the side of assuming subconscious racial bias in cases like this, but I'm going to say that your view here is straight up racist. If you've got two resumes that are equally skilled and knowledgeable, and you just assume that the "black sounding" name is going to be an inferior worker, then you're a fucking racist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The response to the application is based on the name which represents a person. Everything else in those studies is controlled - the only variable is the name. It appears you are claiming that it is not racist to think that someone with a black sounding name is an inferior worker. Thinking that a particular race means an inferior worker is a textbook example of racism in action.

No, while it's discrimination it's based on names rather than races--and there is an actual basis to it even though it certainly doesn't apply in every case.

That doesn't mean there would be a different reaction between a white and black person in person. In today's marketplace companies are flooded with resumes, they get winnowed very aggressively.

First of all, that research was not done in today's marketplace. More importantly, the abundance of applicants to positions does not justify the application of racist standards.

The flood of resumes has been a big problem since the internet came along. People send out a gazillion resumes, businesses respond by aggressive filtering because they don't have the time to study each one.

 

[laughing dog]

No, while it's discrimination it's based on names rather than races--and there is an actual basis to it even though it certainly doesn't apply in every case.

The actual basis is racism - black sounding names are deemed inferior workers.

No matter how you try to dress it up, it is a textbook example of bigotry/racism. It is not surprising to me that you defend it. But with every response you prove my point that you will say anything to hand wave social science research that suggests or shows bigotry/racism.

The flood of resumes has been a big problem since the internet came along. People send out a gazillion resumes, businesses respond by aggressive filtering because they don't have the time to study each one.

Which does not justify bigoted/racists protocols.

 

[ruby sparks]

Interesting, I know I don't make that connection at all. But this is a perfect example of your willingness to pointlessly quibble about legitimate research in order to hand wave away legitimate evidence. Emily Lake's response dissects your poor reasoning. The "reasoning" driving the bigotry/racism is not relevant since every person with a black sounding name does not have lower educational levels.

The point is that the discrimination is about names which people have a valid reason to associate with inferior workers. That doesn't mean there would be a different reaction between a white and black person in person. In today's marketplace companies are flooded with resumes, they get winnowed very aggressively.

That's about the dumbest defense of obvious and egregious racial discriminations I've ever heard. I usually fall more on the side of assuming subconscious racial bias in cases like this, but I'm going to say that your view here is straight up racist. If you've got two resumes that are equally skilled and knowledgeable, and you just assume that the "black sounding" name is going to be an inferior worker, then you're a fucking racist.

Loren will feel that he has given a plausible reason. He always does. The bigger problem, imo, is the number of different plausible reasons he comes up with on different occasions and the number of times he does it. Personally, that noticeable pattern over time is why I think it's blatant, obvious and pathetic denialism at play. It never ceases to shock and amaze me. I find it difficult to understand how any intelligent person can kid themselves to the contrary to such an extent. It makes me want to laugh and vomit at the same time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, while it's discrimination it's based on names rather than races--and there is an actual basis to it even though it certainly doesn't apply in every case.

The actual basis is racism - black sounding names are deemed inferior workers.

Those with names associated with a lack of education are considered inferior workers. Just because something falls along racial lines doesn't automatically make it racist.

No matter how you try to dress it up, it is a textbook example of bigotry/racism. It is not surprising to me that you defend it. But with every response you prove my point that you will say anything to hand wave social science research that suggests or shows bigotry/racism.

I do not deny that it is discrimination. I'm just not willing to accept it's based on race when there's a far more obvious cause in sight.

The flood of resumes has been a big problem since the internet came along. People send out a gazillion resumes, businesses respond by aggressive filtering because they don't have the time to study each one.

Which does not justify bigoted/racists protocols.

Humans are human.

Note that I favor anonymizing as much as possible in hiring--eliminate the issue.

 

[laughing dog]

Those with names associated with a lack of education are considered inferior workers.

The only reason those names are associated with a lack of education is that they sound "black". So the only reason is based on race. Thinking an applicant is less educated because of their imagined race is a textbook example of racism.

But once again, you prove my point - you are willing to say anything to deny racism.

 

[J842P]

Those with names associated with a lack of education are considered inferior workers.

The only reason those names are associated with a lack of education is that they sound "black". So the only reason is based on race. Thinking an applicant is less educated because of their imagined race is a textbook example of racism.

But once again, you prove my point - you are willing to say anything to deny racism.

To try to be generous and to steel-man Loren's argument, you might argue that the names used signal low socioeconomic status. So, maybe the ideal experiment could be something like stereotypically low socioeconomic status white names (e.g. Bubba, Tami-Lynn, etc etc) vs high socioeconomic status white names, vs low socioeconomic status black names, and high socioeconomic status black names (perhaps, African names?). Then, you could look at the relative difference in effect between high-low white names and high-low black names.

I would be surprised if even then you wouldn't see a "black name" effect. Perhaps it would be lower, but maybe, it would be higher.

 

[Jarhyn]

Those with names associated with a lack of education are considered inferior workers.

The only reason those names are associated with a lack of education is that they sound "black". So the only reason is based on race. Thinking an applicant is less educated because of their imagined race is a textbook example of racism.

But once again, you prove my point - you are willing to say anything to deny racism.

To try to be generous and to steel-man Loren's argument, you might argue that the names used signal low socioeconomic status. So, maybe the ideal experiment could be something like stereotypically low socioeconomic status white names (e.g. Bubba, Tami-Lynn, etc etc) vs high socioeconomic status white names, vs low socioeconomic status black names, and high socioeconomic status black names (perhaps, African names?). Then, you could look at the relative difference in effect between high-low white names and high-low black names.

I would be surprised if even then you wouldn't see a "black name" effect. Perhaps it would be lower, but maybe, it would be higher.

Either way, this creates a problem: prejudice not even on who someone is or what they have done and accomplished but rather what two people who are not them decided they will be called without the child's input.

I do not think it either appropriate nor acceptable to discriminate on the basis of a name, regardless how it "signals".

I have brought up document sanitation prior to review phases and the name itself is absolutely one of the things a reviewer shouldn't know.

 

[laughing dog]

Those with names associated with a lack of education are considered inferior workers.

The only reason those names are associated with a lack of education is that they sound "black". So the only reason is based on race. Thinking an applicant is less educated because of their imagined race is a textbook example of racism.

But once again, you prove my point - you are willing to say anything to deny racism.

To try to be generous and to steel-man Loren's argument, you might argue that the names used signal low socioeconomic status. So, maybe the ideal experiment could be something like stereotypically low socioeconomic status white names (e.g. Bubba, Tami-Lynn, etc etc) vs high socioeconomic status white names, vs low socioeconomic status black names, and high socioeconomic status black names (perhaps, African names?). Then, you could look at the relative difference in effect between high-low white names and high-low black names.

I would be surprised if even then you wouldn't see a "black name" effect. Perhaps it would be lower, but maybe, it would be higher.

My point was that LP will make up any excuse to reject evidence from social science research. He has not presented one iota of evidence to support your "generous" interpretation that the "white sounding" names implied high education status.

And, of course, there is basic RACIST premise that black sounding names mean a candidate is inferior.



Fascinatingly, in another thread, he rejects any possible explanation to aver that the possible BIPOC exemption offered by Cornell University is due to racism.

 

[Emily Lake]

Those with names associated with a lack of education are considered inferior workers.

This is an excellent rationalization for not hiring women - because historically, women haven't been as well-educated as men. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that women in general are inferior to man when it comes to jobs.

Plus, you know, people with italian sounding names are probably in the mafia and can't be trusted. People with irish sounding names are probably heavy drinkers. People with jewish sounding names are probably good with money. People with hispanic sounding names are probably lazy.

All perfectly acceptable reasons for just tossing those resumes, right?

I'm just not willing to accept it's based on race when there's a far more obvious cause in sight.

The "obvious cause" being the blatantly racist stereotype that black people are inferior to white people, you mean? Yes, clearly there's no racism involved in assuming that a person with a black-sounding name is going to be inferior to a person with a white-sounding name. None at all. Nope.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Those with names associated with a lack of education are considered inferior workers.

The only reason those names are associated with a lack of education is that they sound "black". So the only reason is based on race. Thinking an applicant is less educated because of their imagined race is a textbook example of racism.

But once again, you prove my point - you are willing to say anything to deny racism.

Disparate impact does not prove discrimination.

Names are associated with educational achievement and educational achievement is associated with value in the workplace.

The experiment needs to be redone with names of the same educational attainment to figure out which effect is really going on--but that's almost certainly not going to happen these days, people aren't interested in testing whether it really is racism.

 

[Jarhyn]

Those with names associated with a lack of education are considered inferior workers.

The only reason those names are associated with a lack of education is that they sound "black". So the only reason is based on race. Thinking an applicant is less educated because of their imagined race is a textbook example of racism.

But once again, you prove my point - you are willing to say anything to deny racism.

Disparate impact does not prove discrimination.

Names are associated with educational achievement and educational achievement is associated with value in the workplace.

The experiment needs to be redone with names of the same educational attainment to figure out which effect is really going on--but that's almost certainly not going to happen these days, people aren't interested in testing whether it really is racism.

So, prejudice, then. You know, the thing that makes racism bad, judging individuals by proxy rather than directly.

You have done nothing to justify using bad proxies and instead excused... Not racism but something equally as bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Those with names associated with a lack of education are considered inferior workers.

The only reason those names are associated with a lack of education is that they sound "black". So the only reason is based on race. Thinking an applicant is less educated because of their imagined race is a textbook example of racism.

But once again, you prove my point - you are willing to say anything to deny racism.

To try to be generous and to steel-man Loren's argument, you might argue that the names used signal low socioeconomic status. So, maybe the ideal experiment could be something like stereotypically low socioeconomic status white names (e.g. Bubba, Tami-Lynn, etc etc) vs high socioeconomic status white names, vs low socioeconomic status black names, and high socioeconomic status black names (perhaps, African names?). Then, you could look at the relative difference in effect between high-low white names and high-low black names.

Exactly, although I'm not sure where you'll find high status black names. The three categories should be enough.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Those with names associated with a lack of education are considered inferior workers.

This is an excellent rationalization for not hiring women - because historically, women haven't been as well-educated as men. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that women in general are inferior to man when it comes to jobs.

Plus, you know, people with italian sounding names are probably in the mafia and can't be trusted. People with irish sounding names are probably heavy drinkers. People with jewish sounding names are probably good with money. People with hispanic sounding names are probably lazy.

All perfectly acceptable reasons for just tossing those resumes, right?

It's not "perfectly acceptable", but in the real world where they have to prune very aggressively it's going to happen.

I'm just not willing to accept it's based on race when there's a far more obvious cause in sight.

The "obvious cause" being the blatantly racist stereotype that black people are inferior to white people, you mean? Yes, clearly there's no racism involved in assuming that a person with a black-sounding name is going to be inferior to a person with a white-sounding name. None at all. Nope.

No--try a fair comparison, low-status black names with low-status white names.

 

[Emily Lake]

Disparate impact does not prove discrimination.

Names are associated with educational achievement and educational achievement is associated with value in the workplace.

The experiment needs to be redone with names of the same educational attainment to figure out which effect is really going on--but that's almost certainly not going to happen these days, people aren't interested in testing whether it really is racism.

What are you talking about here? The study LITERALLY had the exact same resume/CV! IDENTICAL. The only difference was the name.

Are you suggesting that the experiment needs to be redone with only white-sounding names, to see if the association of "black = inferior worker" assumption exists?

I'm baffled that you can insist that making negative assumptions about someone based on the color of their skin and nothing else is not racism.

At this point, I've got to ask what the heck you think constitutes racism at all?