You seem to be operating under the assumption that results from all studies will be acted upon by everyone who reads them. This assumption undermines the rest

You seem to be operating under the assumption that results from all studies will be acted upon by everyone who reads them. This assumption undermines the rest of your points because the chances of someone making a high-profile hiring decision based on potential email response rates is laughably small. Also, I'm looking forward to your "shouldn't be done" condemnation of the original study (http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/marianne.bertrand/research/papers/emily_lakisha_aer.pdf http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/marianne.bertrand/research/p...) that prompted this blog post. What's scary is tacit admission that you'd rather censor scientific research than face some uncomfortable truths about human nature. What other studies about human psychology would you censor? >How do you deal with this situation? You don't, at least not in a liberal state like California. If I may be realistic for a moment: here, having a high-ranking employee who's hispanic-female-gay-disabled-atheist is an advantage. >We've agreed as a society, for good and just reasons, that hiring decisions and compensation decisions should be completely blind to those (and other) factors. This is either naive or delusional, because a lot of people seem to have missed the memo. As much as we may want to be impartial, personal preference will always play a part because we're humans instead of robots. Moreover, there's the grey area called "team fit". I may hire Juan (Hispanic male) because he's very friendly and helpful, but has less experience than Jason (Caucasian male) who's very experienced but cold and aloof. If you look at this strictly from a technical qualifications point of view, then I discriminated against Jason. If you consider the big picture, then you see I made the right hiring decision.