Tiax: That's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see how it pays off.
Take a good hard look at the depth of my responses and the depth of your own.
Then look again and tell me who is obfuscating what. Because you focused on one word in the study and concluded the opposite of what it did. You concluded that it disagreed with the studies I linked, when it explicitly states that it agrees with them and then provides a ****ing god damn reconciliation about how the two things can both simultaneously exist AND that reconciliation is "holy crap, people are racist towards blacks in America" and then you repeatedly go "but it proved your study wrong!"
It cites my study and agrees with it, and then expands upon the findings and says "maybe the impact of what we agree to be true isn't as relevant because there are other sources of racism that supercede anyways"
The conclusion is that a black person changing their name to a white name won't make them any more likely to get hired because in the interview process the employer can see that the interviewee is black and then BAM racism.
Billy, you must really not know what "completely contradicts" means because it agrees with the findings of the other study. Respond to that in kind please. Quote portions of the study that you think respond to the portions of the study that I quoted that say you are reading their study incorrectly. You know, like the part that says "other" or "past the interview process"
And again, forest: trees. The study I quoted was simply an avenue for me to claim that white persons do have societal privileges. I don't ****ing care how I get there as long as we get to a point where we agree that society confers privileges to white people. The study you've read ALSO makes that argument. I don't ****ing care what vehicle we take, we got to the same destination.
This post is just going to be a post quoting things the study has said to show they agree that names play a part in discriminating during determination of who to interview, since Billy seems miffed about that.
Quote from the study »
An important question is how our results can be reconciled with the audit-studies that report lower interview rates for resumes with distinctively Black names (Jowell and PrescottClarke 1970, Hubbick and Carter 1980, Brown and Gay 1985, Bertrand and Mullainathan 2002). The first point to note is that it is unlikely that a Black name could have a large impact on one’s labor market success at any other step in the process. Once an employer has met a candidate in person, race is directly observable.
"Other" being the operative word here. They have said it doesn't make sense that names affect "other" portions of hiring. Because they agree it DOES affect the interview call in part. Other.
Quote from Originally Posted by the study, with the part you conveniently deleted »
"Although that result is seemingly in conflict with previous audit studies involving resumes, we argue that the two sets of findings can be reconciled. It is unlikely that names would be correlated with job outcomes beyond the interview stage since the employer directly observes the applicant’s race once an interview takes place"
But it DOES up to the interview stage. Hmm.
It's almost as if this is their logic
Quote from me »
1) We say interview call-ins are racially discriminated upon based on names
2) The study you find also says that is true
3) The study you find then says "but having a white sounding name has no actual effect on the quality of life a black person will receive"
because
4) Once the interview happens even a black person with a white sounding name will be subject to racism because the employer can now see that you are black.
THE STUDY EXPLICITLY SAYS NAMES HAVE AN IMPACT IN DETERMINING WHO IS CALLED IN FOR AN INTERVIEW. THE STUDY THEN SAYS THAT IMPACT IS MITIGATED BY THE FACT THAT BLACK PEOPLE WITH WHITE SOUNDING NAMES GET CALLED IN TO THE INTERVIEW AND THE EMPLOYER CAN THEN SEE THEY ARE BLACK. THE STUDY THEN SAYS THAT NAMES DON'T HAVE AN IMPACT PAST DETERMINING WHO GETS CALLED IN FOR AN INTERVIEW BECAUSE RACISM EXISTS AND PEOPLE CAN SEE THE PEOPLE THEY ARE INTERVIEWING ARE BLACK.
Holy **** dude. How high is your cognitive dissonance?
No, what they've shown is names do not impact outcomes. You are saying "black names" impact hiring process because of racism.
It's not hard. The name is irrelevant. Meaning the entire study on names is irrelevant.
First of all they agreed with the study that black names means less chance of being called in for an interview. What they concluded was that this wasn't that relevant because when a black person with a white name gets called into an interview the employer can then directly see their race and racism seeps back in.
They also said that their findings were consistent with the study about name-audits because the entire point of their study is do black people with white names have better lives than black people with black names? and the answer is "no" because racism affects them anyways because once the Black person with a white name (henceforth BWN for Black:white-name) is called in the employer sees they are black, and not white, and racist interpretations return.
Seriously, I'm quoting the study, you're just making **** up.
Their conclusion is NOT "Black people have an equal chance as do white people in the labor force" their conclusion is "black people have it harder in the workforce regardless of whether they have a white or black name."
Again, this is an example that discrimination against blacks exist. The fact that they may have said "eh, your methodology could use a little work" does little when their conclusion (IE the ****ing important part) is the exact same.
EDIT: This is especially hilarious to me because I pointed out this possibility whenever I posted my original links to the studies! (None of which are the one ECP linked to, by the way, the one that you're quoting things out of)
Quote from me, post 286 »
This is based on name alone imagine how skin color in the interview room actually plays into it.
It's almost as if I had already responded to that exact claim by quoting the same damn study you were quoting.
Quote from the study, with the part you conveniently deleted »
"Although that result is seemingly in conflict with previous audit studies involving resumes, we argue that the two sets of findings can be reconciled. It is unlikely that names would be correlated with job outcomes beyond the interview stage since the
employer directly observes the applicant’s race once an interview takes place"
A) the study agrees it has a chance with interview abilities and b) it simply says "name doesn't matter once the interview happens because, HOLY **** THEY CAN SEE WHAT RACE YOU ARE AND THE NAME IS NO LONGER THE THING THAT DETERMINES THAT"
I'm going to lay this out in abundantly clear, bite-sized steps.
1) We say interview call-ins are racially discriminated upon based on names
2) The study you find also says that is true
3) The study you find then says "but having a white sounding name has no actual effect on the quality of life a black person will receive"
because
4) Once the interview happens even a black person with a white sounding name will be subject to racism because the employer can now see that you are black.
You have missed the forest for a tree.
They have said there is no benefit for a black person to change their name to a white name. They have NOT said there is no difference in hiring practices between black people and white people
more quotes from the study that prove you're reading it wrong
An important question is how our results can be reconciled with the audit-studies that report lower interview rates for resumes with distinctively Black names (Jowell and PrescottClarke 1970, Hubbick and Carter 1980, Brown and Gay 1985, Bertrand and Mullainathan 2002). The first point to note is that it is unlikely that a Black name could have a large impact on one’s labor market success at any other step in the process. Once an employer has met a candidate in person, race is directly observable.
Well, the part about hiring practices was simply an example of the fact that we live in a society that privileges white Americans and disadvantages black Americans, so I don't care what the example is (although you've found one sentence from one study that agrees with part of the other study and says "but black people with white names also have ****ty lives" so, good on you? There are plenty of other studies and examples out there) as long as we can begin from a premise that being white in America is better than being black in America with all other conditions being the same. Because, ya know, it is.
But yeah, I began this conversation most certainly discussing hiring practices.
Just to be clear for Tiax and ECP: I do NOT want to get caught up in the minutiae of a hiring practices discussion. It was an example to further a point, don't get red herring'd by this.
Yeah, neither of those actually state anything about hiring practices, which was the subject of our discussion. It also is generically about whether a black person with a black name or white name changes much about their social conditions. Furthermore the study decisively concludes that racism exists and is derogatory towards black Americans.
More importantly you left off the ****ing reconciliation portion of it : "it is unlikely that names would be correlated with job outcomes beyond the interview stage since the
employer directly observes the applicant’s race once an interview takes place"
A) the study agrees it has a chance with interview abilities and b) it simply says "name doesn't matter once the interview happens because, HOLY **** THEY CAN SEE WHAT RACE YOU ARE AND THE NAME IS NO LONGER THE THING THAT DETERMINES THAT"
So, I know what you're trying to get at with the racial profiling interpretation. I'll make this absurdly simple so you stop trying to equate what we are doing with racial profiling.
We are making claims about how society will respond to you because of your skin color.
Racial profiling makes claims about how you will act in society because of your skin color.
Saying "You lucked out because society will treat you better because of your skin color" is vastly different from saying "you are going to rob a store because of your skin color"
Also take great note that we are criticizing the way that society treats you because of your skin color. Making a descriptive claims is NOT the same as making a normative claim. Our normative claim is that the thing we are describing is bad.
Let me say this again since you, for the fourth time now, seem to have just ignored it and blatantly missed it. We are not saying that white people are superior and thus have advantages. We are saying that society sees white people as superior and thus confers advantages upon them and we think this is bad
I did not "blatantly miss it". I just reject the idea and attempts to validate on the basis it's racist. Really no more to discuss.
Because...?
You're missing a reason anything you've said is true. For someone who complains about others playing "the race card" you sure are quick to play the "racist" card.
How is it racist to point out the actual negative effects of racism? Like the callback study that both me and _ have posted. African sounding names on identical resumes get called back less, significantly so. That is as close to fact as we're likely to find here.
I've explained this and even asked for a link to the study. Yet, you keep asking.
Your explanation is insufficient, that's our problem. We disagree with the logic of your explanation and have repeatedly demonstrated why it is incorrect. Pointing out how racism affects people can never itself be racist, because that's dumb as all hell.
Also I figured that you defending the study as sound earlier in the thread meant that you had found it. Odd how you saying "the study is sound" overwhelms your previous request for the study especially since you didn't ever request the study after you defended it. Weird.
Anyways the methodology of the (several, not just one) studies were as follows: Create fake resumes with identical levels of qualification and experience. Create fake names and send to real employers looking to hire persons. Persons with white names received 50% more callbacks than persons with black names of the exact same level of qualification.
This is based on name alone imagine how skin color in the interview room actually plays into it.
And because you were actually involved in the second thread and responded to my posts in there I'll include this one about "oh durrr, it's just about names people are familiar with"
Because, yeah, the reason people who are in positions of hiring are "more familiar" with white names is because of holy-****ing-**** racism! Unless you think that the 60s 70s and 80s were also perfectly equal and that no one hired white persons over black persons into positions of authority thus ensuring that in 5 years whenever new hires are made they're by people who are more familiar with white names because they got hired because their name was more familiar with the white person hiring, ad infintum.
So, I know what you're trying to get at with the racial profiling interpretation. I'll make this absurdly simple so you stop trying to equate what we are doing with racial profiling.
We are making claims about how society will respond to you because of your skin color.
Racial profiling makes claims about how you will act in society because of your skin color.
Saying "You lucked out because society will treat you better because of your skin color" is vastly different from saying "you are going to rob a store because of your skin color"
Also take great note that we are criticizing the way that society treats you because of your skin color. Making a descriptive claims is NOT the same as making a normative claim. Our normative claim is that the thing we are describing is bad.
Let me say this again since you, for the fourth time now, seem to have just ignored it and blatantly missed it. We are not saying that white people are superior and thus have advantages. We are saying that society sees white people as superior and thus confers advantages upon them and we think this is bad
The problem is that you have yet to "prove" (as you claim to have done, which is hilarious and woefully inaccurate) that pointing out that racism exists and benefits certain members of a race is racist.
Let's be perfectly clear here. Your argument is, quite literally, that pointing out how racism benefits people of a race is racist. It is racist to point out racism.
No, you have a socially constructed advantage because of your inherent skin color. We can prove this because those benefits have changed over time, something that inherent advantages cannot do (by definition of the word "inherent" which means "permanent")
Yes, skin color is what determines how society doles out those benefits, because holy **** that's precisely how racism works, but that does not mean that any of the anti-racists in here think you're inherently better because of your skin color. Mostly because that's one of the aspects of racism. We think that society gives privilege and deference to you because of your skin color.
Obviously your race gives you societal and structural advantages. This is not because you are inherently better, but because of society's perceptions and reactions to your race.
Look at your twisted logic, I'm going to make a fact claim that I've repeated in nigh 5 different threads now, which has been back up by several academic, peer reviewed, sources elsewhere.
Whenever a person applies for a job with the exact same qualifications they are 50% more likely to be called in for an interview if their name is a "white" name like "George" or "Sarah" as opposed to a "black" name like "Jamal" and "Shaunika"
According to you it is racist for me to say "that is an advantage to being white."
You have literally said it is racist to point out how racism benefits certain races.
Saying that a current power structural dynamic has made it such that whites have advantages over blacks is not an admission that "whites are superior to blacks"
What words offend you is an entirely different thing than what words are offensive. Contrary to moronic beliefs words have socially shaped meanings and responses.
Take a good hard look at the depth of my responses and the depth of your own.
Then look again and tell me who is obfuscating what. Because you focused on one word in the study and concluded the opposite of what it did. You concluded that it disagreed with the studies I linked, when it explicitly states that it agrees with them and then provides a ****ing god damn reconciliation about how the two things can both simultaneously exist AND that reconciliation is "holy crap, people are racist towards blacks in America" and then you repeatedly go "but it proved your study wrong!"
It cites my study and agrees with it, and then expands upon the findings and says "maybe the impact of what we agree to be true isn't as relevant because there are other sources of racism that supercede anyways"
The conclusion is that a black person changing their name to a white name won't make them any more likely to get hired because in the interview process the employer can see that the interviewee is black and then BAM racism.
Billy, you must really not know what "completely contradicts" means because it agrees with the findings of the other study. Respond to that in kind please. Quote portions of the study that you think respond to the portions of the study that I quoted that say you are reading their study incorrectly. You know, like the part that says "other" or "past the interview process"
And again, forest: trees. The study I quoted was simply an avenue for me to claim that white persons do have societal privileges. I don't ****ing care how I get there as long as we get to a point where we agree that society confers privileges to white people. The study you've read ALSO makes that argument. I don't ****ing care what vehicle we take, we got to the same destination.
"Other" being the operative word here. They have said it doesn't make sense that names affect "other" portions of hiring. Because they agree it DOES affect the interview call in part. Other.
But it DOES up to the interview stage. Hmm.
It's almost as if this is their logic
THE STUDY EXPLICITLY SAYS NAMES HAVE AN IMPACT IN DETERMINING WHO IS CALLED IN FOR AN INTERVIEW. THE STUDY THEN SAYS THAT IMPACT IS MITIGATED BY THE FACT THAT BLACK PEOPLE WITH WHITE SOUNDING NAMES GET CALLED IN TO THE INTERVIEW AND THE EMPLOYER CAN THEN SEE THEY ARE BLACK. THE STUDY THEN SAYS THAT NAMES DON'T HAVE AN IMPACT PAST DETERMINING WHO GETS CALLED IN FOR AN INTERVIEW BECAUSE RACISM EXISTS AND PEOPLE CAN SEE THE PEOPLE THEY ARE INTERVIEWING ARE BLACK.
Holy **** dude. How high is your cognitive dissonance?
First of all they agreed with the study that black names means less chance of being called in for an interview. What they concluded was that this wasn't that relevant because when a black person with a white name gets called into an interview the employer can then directly see their race and racism seeps back in.
They also said that their findings were consistent with the study about name-audits because the entire point of their study is do black people with white names have better lives than black people with black names? and the answer is "no" because racism affects them anyways because once the Black person with a white name (henceforth BWN for Black:white-name) is called in the employer sees they are black, and not white, and racist interpretations return.
Seriously, I'm quoting the study, you're just making **** up.
Their conclusion is NOT "Black people have an equal chance as do white people in the labor force" their conclusion is "black people have it harder in the workforce regardless of whether they have a white or black name."
Again, this is an example that discrimination against blacks exist. The fact that they may have said "eh, your methodology could use a little work" does little when their conclusion (IE the ****ing important part) is the exact same.
EDIT: This is especially hilarious to me because I pointed out this possibility whenever I posted my original links to the studies! (None of which are the one ECP linked to, by the way, the one that you're quoting things out of)
A) the study agrees it has a chance with interview abilities and b) it simply says "name doesn't matter once the interview happens because, HOLY **** THEY CAN SEE WHAT RACE YOU ARE AND THE NAME IS NO LONGER THE THING THAT DETERMINES THAT"
I'm going to lay this out in abundantly clear, bite-sized steps.
1) We say interview call-ins are racially discriminated upon based on names
2) The study you find also says that is true
3) The study you find then says "but having a white sounding name has no actual effect on the quality of life a black person will receive"
because
4) Once the interview happens even a black person with a white sounding name will be subject to racism because the employer can now see that you are black.
You have missed the forest for a tree.
They have said there is no benefit for a black person to change their name to a white name. They have NOT said there is no difference in hiring practices between black people and white people
more quotes from the study that prove you're reading it wrong
But yeah, I began this conversation most certainly discussing hiring practices.
Just to be clear for Tiax and ECP: I do NOT want to get caught up in the minutiae of a hiring practices discussion. It was an example to further a point, don't get red herring'd by this.
More importantly you left off the ****ing reconciliation portion of it : "it is unlikely that names would be correlated with job outcomes beyond the interview stage since the
employer directly observes the applicant’s race once an interview takes place"
A) the study agrees it has a chance with interview abilities and b) it simply says "name doesn't matter once the interview happens because, HOLY **** THEY CAN SEE WHAT RACE YOU ARE AND THE NAME IS NO LONGER THE THING THAT DETERMINES THAT"
Because...?
You're missing a reason anything you've said is true. For someone who complains about others playing "the race card" you sure are quick to play the "racist" card.
Except they are probably more accurate than you.
Your explanation is insufficient, that's our problem. We disagree with the logic of your explanation and have repeatedly demonstrated why it is incorrect. Pointing out how racism affects people can never itself be racist, because that's dumb as all hell.
Also I figured that you defending the study as sound earlier in the thread meant that you had found it. Odd how you saying "the study is sound" overwhelms your previous request for the study especially since you didn't ever request the study after you defended it. Weird.
Anyways the methodology of the (several, not just one) studies were as follows: Create fake resumes with identical levels of qualification and experience. Create fake names and send to real employers looking to hire persons. Persons with white names received 50% more callbacks than persons with black names of the exact same level of qualification.
This is based on name alone imagine how skin color in the interview room actually plays into it.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9167493&postcount=34
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=10226267&postcount=173
And because you were actually involved in the second thread and responded to my posts in there I'll include this one about "oh durrr, it's just about names people are familiar with"
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=10226299&postcount=178
Because, yeah, the reason people who are in positions of hiring are "more familiar" with white names is because of holy-****ing-**** racism! Unless you think that the 60s 70s and 80s were also perfectly equal and that no one hired white persons over black persons into positions of authority thus ensuring that in 5 years whenever new hires are made they're by people who are more familiar with white names because they got hired because their name was more familiar with the white person hiring, ad infintum.
Going to include this too: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=10226542&postcount=191
We are making claims about how society will respond to you because of your skin color.
Racial profiling makes claims about how you will act in society because of your skin color.
Saying "You lucked out because society will treat you better because of your skin color" is vastly different from saying "you are going to rob a store because of your skin color"
Also take great note that we are criticizing the way that society treats you because of your skin color. Making a descriptive claims is NOT the same as making a normative claim. Our normative claim is that the thing we are describing is bad.
Let me say this again since you, for the fourth time now, seem to have just ignored it and blatantly missed it. We are not saying that white people are superior and thus have advantages. We are saying that society sees white people as superior and thus confers advantages upon them and we think this is bad
Let's be perfectly clear here. Your argument is, quite literally, that pointing out how racism benefits people of a race is racist. It is racist to point out racism.
Are you ****ing kidding me?
Yes, skin color is what determines how society doles out those benefits, because holy **** that's precisely how racism works, but that does not mean that any of the anti-racists in here think you're inherently better because of your skin color. Mostly because that's one of the aspects of racism. We think that society gives privilege and deference to you because of your skin color.
Obviously your race gives you societal and structural advantages. This is not because you are inherently better, but because of society's perceptions and reactions to your race.
Look at your twisted logic, I'm going to make a fact claim that I've repeated in nigh 5 different threads now, which has been back up by several academic, peer reviewed, sources elsewhere.
Whenever a person applies for a job with the exact same qualifications they are 50% more likely to be called in for an interview if their name is a "white" name like "George" or "Sarah" as opposed to a "black" name like "Jamal" and "Shaunika"
According to you it is racist for me to say "that is an advantage to being white."
You have literally said it is racist to point out how racism benefits certain races.
What the ****ing ****?
This is ****ing asinine.
See again my personal example about "failure".