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

[Loren Pechtel]

I do remember years ago having a fairly similar discussion with Loren regarding women's equality. IIRC, his position was that the wage gap was no bid deal, it's just because women take time off to have babies. When I pointed out that women who DO NOT have babies ALSO get paid less, he seemed to think that was okay, because it's reasonable for an employer to assume that a female employee *might* have a baby, and thus she wasn't as good an investment as a male employee would be.

This really doesn't seem to be a different argument.

Just because you don't like reality doesn't make it go away.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course it matters. So we have many studies that show there is a black/white difference and one that does not. While it is possible all the other studies got it wrong and the one that confirms with your kneejerk biases got it right, a rational disinterested person might think that it is the other way around.

We have many studies that show it while failing to control for socioeconomic effects. We have one that does control and doesn't see the effect--that shows all the other studies failed to consider a critical aspect of the issue and thus are worthless.

That is your very biased take on the matter. The CV study had identical CVS with identical educational backgrounds. You have not provided one jot of evidence that the CVs were not read.

 

[Trausti]

I don’t know that the 2004 resume study was replicated to address its flaws. But it is so curious that those convinced it showed implicit racism are those who waive off the explicit discrimination against Asians and Whites in university admissions.

I don't waive it off. In some cases I think it's overzealous, in others I think it's a justifiable step necessary to correct a prior injustice that has long-term generational effects.

Affirmative Action does discriminate in favor of minorities and women. In most cases, however, I think that it's a justifiable and necessary step that needs to be taken in order to solidify the shift in mindset needed to overcome social biases. In the same way, we need overrepresentation of minorities and homosexuals in films and TV shows, especially when they are not centered in those shows, in order to overcome subconscious biases. We need portrayals of gay couples that are about them being gay, to help shift the ingrained stereotypes and show that gay people are just people.

Either discrimination based on race and sex is wrong or it isn't. Once you start playing favorites you become that which you claim to be against.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course it matters. So we have many studies that show there is a black/white difference and one that does not. While it is possible all the other studies got it wrong and the one that confirms with your kneejerk biases got it right, a rational disinterested person might think that it is the other way around.

We have many studies that show it while failing to control for socioeconomic effects. We have one that does control and doesn't see the effect--that shows all the other studies failed to consider a critical aspect of the issue and thus are worthless.

That is your very biased take on the matter. The CV study had identical CVS with identical educational backgrounds. You have not provided one jot of evidence that the CVs were not read.

If the CVs were not read, that's more of an indictment on the behavior, not less.

The fact is, anyone who can defend the use of a mere name, at any pass of the hiring process, needs to reevaluate their ethics AND their morals. There is an abject failure there, and one that should disqualify someone from hiring at all.

Of course the ethical person, when they see such a behavior, says "and this is yet another thing hiring managers shouldn't be able to look at, if they cannot remain unbiased!"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course it matters. So we have many studies that show there is a black/white difference and one that does not. While it is possible all the other studies got it wrong and the one that confirms with your kneejerk biases got it right, a rational disinterested person might think that it is the other way around.

We have many studies that show it while failing to control for socioeconomic effects. We have one that does control and doesn't see the effect--that shows all the other studies failed to consider a critical aspect of the issue and thus are worthless.

That is your very biased take on the matter. The CV study had identical CVS with identical educational backgrounds. You have not provided one jot of evidence that the CVs were not read.

Which does nothing to address my point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is your very biased take on the matter. The CV study had identical CVS with identical educational backgrounds. You have not provided one jot of evidence that the CVs were not read.

If the CVs were not read, that's more of an indictment on the behavior, not less.

The fact is, anyone who can defend the use of a mere name, at any pass of the hiring process, needs to reevaluate their ethics AND their morals. There is an abject failure there, and one that should disqualify someone from hiring at all.

Of course the ethical person, when they see such a behavior, says "and this is yet another thing hiring managers shouldn't be able to look at, if they cannot remain unbiased!"

I've never said it isn't discrimination. I'm saying it's socioeconomic, not racial.

 

[laughing dog]

That is your very biased take on the matter. The CV study had identical CVS with identical educational backgrounds. You have not provided one jot of evidence that the CVs were not read.

Which does nothing to address my point.

Sticking your head in the sand does not change the reality. There is no evidence that the results in that study are based on socioeconomic factors. Everything was identical (including the education) except for the name. Hell, you don't even know if the black sounding names indicated low class. You have not even provided what a high class black sounding name would be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is your very biased take on the matter. The CV study had identical CVS with identical educational backgrounds. You have not provided one jot of evidence that the CVs were not read.

Which does nothing to address my point.

Sticking your head in the sand does not change the reality. There is no evidence that the results in that study are based on socioeconomic factors. Everything was identical (including the education) except for the name. Hell, you don't even know if the black sounding names indicated low class. You have not even provided what a high class black sounding name would be.

Just because you don't like the results doesn't say the study is wrong. They controlled for the factor that all the other studies didn't and got the opposite result. That makes it very likely they're right.

 

[laughing dog]

Sticking your head in the sand does not change the reality. There is no evidence that the results in that study are based on socioeconomic factors. Everything was identical (including the education) except for the name. Hell, you don't even know if the black sounding names indicated low class. You have not even provided what a high class black sounding name would be.

Just because you don't like the results doesn't say the study is wrong.

I am sure the mega-irony of that statement eludes you. Moreover, I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was irrelevant.


Your inability to provide actual evidence that the CV study used "low education" sounding names indicates you have nothing. "Could be" or "should have done" are not arguments but excuses to defend your racism denial.

Even after a number of request you haven't even provided what a "high education" sounding black name would be.

With every response, you provide more evidence that you will say anything to deny the results from social science research that conflict with your faith-based beliefs.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don’t know that the 2004 resume study was replicated to address its flaws. But it is so curious that those convinced it showed implicit racism are those who waive off the explicit discrimination against Asians and Whites in university admissions.

I don't waive it off. In some cases I think it's overzealous, in others I think it's a justifiable step necessary to correct a prior injustice that has long-term generational effects.

Affirmative Action does discriminate in favor of minorities and women. In most cases, however, I think that it's a justifiable and necessary step that needs to be taken in order to solidify the shift in mindset needed to overcome social biases. In the same way, we need overrepresentation of minorities and homosexuals in films and TV shows, especially when they are not centered in those shows, in order to overcome subconscious biases. We need portrayals of gay couples that are about them being gay, to help shift the ingrained stereotypes and show that gay people are just people.

It also discriminates *against* minorities who have suffered serious, generational injustices. But ok.

In what way?

 

[Emily Lake]

I do remember years ago having a fairly similar discussion with Loren regarding women's equality. IIRC, his position was that the wage gap was no bid deal, it's just because women take time off to have babies. When I pointed out that women who DO NOT have babies ALSO get paid less, he seemed to think that was okay, because it's reasonable for an employer to assume that a female employee *might* have a baby, and thus she wasn't as good an investment as a male employee would be.

This really doesn't seem to be a different argument.

Just because you don't like reality doesn't make it go away.

Reality is that I (and many other women) don't have kids... yet we still get disadvantaged by the ASSUMPTION of other people about what we MIGHT do, for no reason except that we're female.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

98% of rapes are committed by males. Because of that statistic, I think it should be reasonable to assume that any random male *might* be a rapist, and therefore a bad investment for an employer. Based on this assumption, men should get paid a lot less than women.

How does that logic hold for you?

 

[Emily Lake]

Of course it matters. So we have many studies that show there is a black/white difference and one that does not. While it is possible all the other studies got it wrong and the one that confirms with your kneejerk biases got it right, a rational disinterested person might think that it is the other way around.

We have many studies that show it while failing to control for socioeconomic effects. We have one that does control and doesn't see the effect--that shows all the other studies failed to consider a critical aspect of the issue and thus are worthless.

That is your very biased take on the matter. The CV study had identical CVS with identical educational backgrounds. You have not provided one jot of evidence that the CVs were not read.

Yes, but LD, they had "low class sounding" names! Don't you know that's a way better predictor of employee performance than such wiggly and unsubstantiated things as academic achievements and demonstrated leadership and community involvement!

Low Class!!!!11111Eleventyone!!!

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't waive it off. In some cases I think it's overzealous, in others I think it's a justifiable step necessary to correct a prior injustice that has long-term generational effects.

Affirmative Action does discriminate in favor of minorities and women. In most cases, however, I think that it's a justifiable and necessary step that needs to be taken in order to solidify the shift in mindset needed to overcome social biases. In the same way, we need overrepresentation of minorities and homosexuals in films and TV shows, especially when they are not centered in those shows, in order to overcome subconscious biases. We need portrayals of gay couples that are about them being gay, to help shift the ingrained stereotypes and show that gay people are just people.

Either discrimination based on race and sex is wrong or it isn't. Once you start playing favorites you become that which you claim to be against.

Is discrimination based on disability wrong?

If no, then screw it, take out all of those disabled parking spaces and ramps, and protections for disabled people, it's fine to discriminate against them.
If yes, then screw it, take out all of those disabled parking spaces and ramps, and special privileges for disabled people, we wouldn't want to discriminate against able-bodied people.

Your approach sounds very egalitarian and principled. It's a view that I used to hold myself. Then, at some point, I realized that this principle, if applied without consideration of impact, leads to a situation that always entrenches unfair disadvantages and discrimination against the losers, and reinforces the privileges and superiority of the winners. It cannot actually mitigate those disadvantages.

The only way to address the systemic inequity is to take active steps to prevent discrimination against that disadvantaged group. Ideally that should be a temporary state, until the social biases and stereotypes are overcome, likely a few generations.

 

[Emily Lake]

Just because you don't like the results doesn't say the study is wrong. They controlled for the factor that all the other studies didn't and got the opposite result. That makes it very likely they're right.

I have some skepticism about that study. The study that you're relying on used last names as a proxy for race, and gave everyone "socioeconomically equal" first names. They're using statistical prevalence of last names with race, and assuming that people have an internal association of race for those names, which I think is likely a flawed assumption.

The last names for black people that they used were Washington and Jefferson. While those might statistically be more prevalent among black families, I don't personally have any assumed race attached to them. They're nowhere near as race-laden as the first names of Leroy, Dante, or Laquisha.

If you had to guess the race of an applicant, with no other information but their name... what would you assume for:

• Megan Anderson
• Megan Jefferson
• Brian Anderson
• Brian Jefferson
• Leroy James
• Chad James
• Jessica Williams
• Jada Williams

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

So, how do we fix it?

 

[Jarhyn]

Just because you don't like the results doesn't say the study is wrong. They controlled for the factor that all the other studies didn't and got the opposite result. That makes it very likely they're right.

I have some skepticism about that study. The study that you're relying on used last names as a proxy for race, and gave everyone "socioeconomically equal" first names. They're using statistical prevalence of last names with race, and assuming that people have an internal association of race for those names, which I think is likely a flawed assumption.

The last names for black people that they used were Washington and Jefferson. While those might statistically be more prevalent among black families, I don't personally have any assumed race attached to them. They're nowhere near as race-laden as the first names of Leroy, Dante, or Laquisha.

If you had to guess the race of an applicant, with no other information but their name... what would you assume for:

• Megan Anderson
• Megan Jefferson
• Brian Anderson
• Brian Jefferson
• Leroy James
• Chad James
• Jessica Williams
• Jada Williams

Not to mention the fact that discrimination based on name is ethically equivalent to discrimination based on skin color: it ought not be done.

Interestingly, LP's study shows something I think is fairly important to note: that sanitizing names allows reviewers to more objectively rate applicants.

Good to know I've been proven right!

 

[laughing dog]

Just because you don't like the results doesn't say the study is wrong. They controlled for the factor that all the other studies didn't and got the opposite result. That makes it very likely they're right.

I have some skepticism about that study. The study that you're relying on used last names as a proxy for race, and gave everyone "socioeconomically equal" first names. They're using statistical prevalence of last names with race, and assuming that people have an internal association of race for those names, which I think is likely a flawed assumption.

The last names for black people that they used were Washington and Jefferson. While those might statistically be more prevalent among black families, I don't personally have any assumed race attached to them. They're nowhere near as race-laden as the first names of Leroy, Dante, or Laquisha.

If you had to guess the race of an applicant, with no other information but their name... what would you assume for:

• Megan Anderson
• Megan Jefferson
• Brian Anderson
• Brian Jefferson
• Leroy James
• Chad James
• Jessica Williams
• Jada Williams

So according to that study George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would likely be viewed as black? Using LP standards, that study is garbage.

 

[Jarhyn]

Just because you don't like the results doesn't say the study is wrong. They controlled for the factor that all the other studies didn't and got the opposite result. That makes it very likely they're right.

I have some skepticism about that study. The study that you're relying on used last names as a proxy for race, and gave everyone "socioeconomically equal" first names. They're using statistical prevalence of last names with race, and assuming that people have an internal association of race for those names, which I think is likely a flawed assumption.

The last names for black people that they used were Washington and Jefferson. While those might statistically be more prevalent among black families, I don't personally have any assumed race attached to them. They're nowhere near as race-laden as the first names of Leroy, Dante, or Laquisha.

If you had to guess the race of an applicant, with no other information but their name... what would you assume for:

• Megan Anderson
• Megan Jefferson
• Brian Anderson
• Brian Jefferson
• Leroy James
• Chad James
• Jessica Williams
• Jada Williams

So according to that study George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would likely be viewed as black? Using LP standards, that study is garbage.

The fact of the matter is, using any measure other than the "absolute merit" of a candidate--name, age, race, sex, gender, sexuality, outside interests--is not ethical, and in any sane approach, this would not even be accessible information.

I don't know why we are even discussing this.

Or if you need a Bible verse to understand wisdom when you see it... "If your eye causes you to sin pluck it out."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sticking your head in the sand does not change the reality. There is no evidence that the results in that study are based on socioeconomic factors. Everything was identical (including the education) except for the name. Hell, you don't even know if the black sounding names indicated low class. You have not even provided what a high class black sounding name would be.

Just because you don't like the results doesn't say the study is wrong.

I am sure the mega-irony of that statement eludes you. Moreover, I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was irrelevant.


Your inability to provide actual evidence that the CV study used "low education" sounding names indicates you have nothing. "Could be" or "should have done" are not arguments but excuses to defend your racism denial.

Even after a number of request you haven't even provided what a "high education" sounding black name would be.

With every response, you provide more evidence that you will say anything to deny the results from social science research that conflict with your faith-based beliefs.

Of course I haven't provided a high-education black name--I'm not aware of any. We have the study that used average-education names and found the supposed "racial" discrimination went away. You still haven't address that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do remember years ago having a fairly similar discussion with Loren regarding women's equality. IIRC, his position was that the wage gap was no bid deal, it's just because women take time off to have babies. When I pointed out that women who DO NOT have babies ALSO get paid less, he seemed to think that was okay, because it's reasonable for an employer to assume that a female employee *might* have a baby, and thus she wasn't as good an investment as a male employee would be.

This really doesn't seem to be a different argument.

Just because you don't like reality doesn't make it go away.

Reality is that I (and many other women) don't have kids... yet we still get disadvantaged by the ASSUMPTION of other people about what we MIGHT do, for no reason except that we're female.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

98% of rapes are committed by males. Because of that statistic, I think it should be reasonable to assume that any random male *might* be a rapist, and therefore a bad investment for an employer. Based on this assumption, men should get paid a lot less than women.

How does that logic hold for you?

Being a rapist is far less likely than having children.

And note that an awful lot of employers do criminal background checks. That's an attempt to keep the rapists (and other bad elements) out.