5 ms·

I'm not from the US, but don't many American blacks have white-sounding names? And I assume those blacks are more likely to come from families that are wealthie

by tomp 12y ago

I'm not from the US, but don't many American blacks have white-sounding names? And I assume those blacks are more likely to come from families that are wealthier and better educated. If yes, the other explanation could be that the employers were considering the name an indication of background, i.e. a "Jamal" is more likely to come "from the hood" (poor neighborhood) than a "James". The point is, "discrimination" is sometimes just applying statistics. Just because some statistical factors correlate with race doesn't mean one is being racist; they are just optimizing their selection process.

DanBC 12y ago
> The point is, "discrimination" is sometimes just applying statistics. Just because some statistical factors correlate with race doesn't mean one is being racist; they are just optimizing their selection process. If your optimized selection process selects away from Black candidates it is by definition racist.
- tomp 12y ago
  So, is college selection process in the US racist? The process is SAT, and AFAIK blacks and Hispanics score less than whites, who score less than Asians. Is is also sexist (as more women than men study)? I don't think so. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Edit: also, since more Asians and less blacks are accepted at good universities, if your company relies on the name of university when selecting candidates (e.g. a candidate from Harvard is more likely to have an interview than a candidate from an unknown state school), by your logic that's racist as well.
  - UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
    We have a term for that in US law - "disparate impact." And yes, if your hiring practices are found to have a disparate impact on a protected class, it is illegal.
    - tomp 12y ago
      All hiring practices have a disparate impact on protected classes. The only issue is proving it. God I hate such laws!
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  Hang, on that's not the definition of racism. Racism is [dis]favouring a particular group based on race. If you choose the 10 highest scorers in a maths test in a group and the racial make-up doesn't match that of the group as a whole that's not racist. One could manipulate your choice characteristics in order to achieve the racial profile that you want. That's serious conspiracy theory territory though.
UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
Jesus... did you even read the article you are commenting on? It isn't just one example. And it isnt about being racist, its about racism without racists. > One study conducted by a Brigham Young University economics professor showed that white NBA referees call more fouls on black layers, and black referees call more fouls on white players. Another study that was published in the American Journal of Sociology showed that newly released white felons experience better job hunting success than young black men with no criminal record, Ross says. >"The overwhelming number of people will actually experience the black man as having the knife because we're more open to the notion of the black man having a knife than a white man, " Ross says. "This is one of the most insidious things about bias. People may absorb these things without knowing them." Anyways, this kinda stuff has been shown to happen with plenty of different groups. Attractive vs ugly, fat vs normal weight, woman vs man, old vs young, tall vs short. We aren't as rational as we'd like to believe. ...And what the hell does someone coming from a poor neighborhood have anything to do with anything? I grew up poor, I don't see how that is relevant to my job skills. I'd love to knkw why I'd be optimized out of a selection process. Furthermore, your resume usually has your address on it, you don't have to guess.
- tomp 12y ago
  > did you even read the article you are commenting on? No, I was just commenting on the logic of the quote in the parent comment, which I find faulty. I'm not saying people aren't racist, or subconsciously racist; I'm just saying that you can't reduce any statistical effect down to racist, while other explanations are just as possible. > And what the hell does someone coming from a poor neighborhood have anything to do with anything? I'm pretty sure that if you run statistics, you would find out that people from poor neighborhoods are more likely to be criminals, violent, less educated, less intelligent. Is it their fault? No, obviously not - they were never given a chance to excel (or rather, they had to overcome many more obstacles). But I think it's the responsibility of the government (or charities) to help such people, while it's the responsibility of a business to, well, do business, with the best employees it can hire. Btw, I'm not saying that you should take the above into account. I just oppose the logic that it's always "racism". Because then you could equally say, it's racist to prefer people from Harvard, because Harvard discriminates against people from bad neighborhoods, because they have lower SAT scores. > Furthermore, your resume usually has your address on it, you don't have to guess. Oh, I didn't know. Mine doesn't.
JohnBooty 12y ago
> The point is, "discrimination" is sometimes just > applying statistics. Just because some statistical > factors correlate with race doesn't mean one is being > racist; they are just optimizing their selection process. It's still not very good thinking, ethically or pragmatically. Even if you could 100% accurately determine a candidate's background from looking at their resume, and even if you could be sure that people from their background were more likely to be "bad" people[1] then couldn't you also look at "Jamal's" resume and conclude: "Obviously, Jamal must be a talented guy to rise above his background and pursue a technical career?" In the end, it's all guesswork anyway. Companies would be much better served by sticking to the facts on "Jamal's" resume and checking themselves whenever they catch themselves inventing fictional histories for people based on a candidate's name and their own racist prejudices and stereotypes. _____ [1] To be clear: I don't agree that either of these things are true.

by tomp 12y ago

DanBC 12y ago

> The point is, "discrimination" is sometimes just applying statistics. Just because some statistical factors correlate with race doesn't mean one is being racist; they are just optimizing their selection process. If your optimized selection process selects away from Black candidates it is by definition racist.

tomp 12y ago
So, is college selection process in the US racist? The process is SAT, and AFAIK blacks and Hispanics score less than whites, who score less than Asians. Is is also sexist (as more women than men study)? I don't think so. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Edit: also, since more Asians and less blacks are accepted at good universities, if your company relies on the name of university when selecting candidates (e.g. a candidate from Harvard is more likely to have an interview than a candidate from an unknown state school), by your logic that's racist as well.
- UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
  We have a term for that in US law - "disparate impact." And yes, if your hiring practices are found to have a disparate impact on a protected class, it is illegal.
  - tomp 12y ago
    All hiring practices have a disparate impact on protected classes. The only issue is proving it. God I hate such laws!
pbhjpbhj 12y ago
Hang, on that's not the definition of racism. Racism is [dis]favouring a particular group based on race. If you choose the 10 highest scorers in a maths test in a group and the racial make-up doesn't match that of the group as a whole that's not racist. One could manipulate your choice characteristics in order to achieve the racial profile that you want. That's serious conspiracy theory territory though.

UrMomReadsHN 12y ago

Jesus... did you even read the article you are commenting on? It isn't just one example. And it isnt about being racist, its about racism without racists. > One study conducted by a Brigham Young University economics professor showed that white NBA referees call more fouls on black layers, and black referees call more fouls on white players. Another study that was published in the American Journal of Sociology showed that newly released white felons experience better job hunting success than young black men with no criminal record, Ross says. >"The overwhelming number of people will actually experience the black man as having the knife because we're more open to the notion of the black man having a knife than a white man, " Ross says. "This is one of the most insidious things about bias. People may absorb these things without knowing them." Anyways, this kinda stuff has been shown to happen with plenty of different groups. Attractive vs ugly, fat vs normal weight, woman vs man, old vs young, tall vs short. We aren't as rational as we'd like to believe. ...And what the hell does someone coming from a poor neighborhood have anything to do with anything? I grew up poor, I don't see how that is relevant to my job skills. I'd love to knkw why I'd be optimized out of a selection process. Furthermore, your resume usually has your address on it, you don't have to guess.

tomp 12y ago
> did you even read the article you are commenting on? No, I was just commenting on the logic of the quote in the parent comment, which I find faulty. I'm not saying people aren't racist, or subconsciously racist; I'm just saying that you can't reduce any statistical effect down to racist, while other explanations are just as possible. > And what the hell does someone coming from a poor neighborhood have anything to do with anything? I'm pretty sure that if you run statistics, you would find out that people from poor neighborhoods are more likely to be criminals, violent, less educated, less intelligent. Is it their fault? No, obviously not - they were never given a chance to excel (or rather, they had to overcome many more obstacles). But I think it's the responsibility of the government (or charities) to help such people, while it's the responsibility of a business to, well, do business, with the best employees it can hire. Btw, I'm not saying that you should take the above into account. I just oppose the logic that it's always "racism". Because then you could equally say, it's racist to prefer people from Harvard, because Harvard discriminates against people from bad neighborhoods, because they have lower SAT scores. > Furthermore, your resume usually has your address on it, you don't have to guess. Oh, I didn't know. Mine doesn't.

JohnBooty 12y ago

> The point is, "discrimination" is sometimes just > applying statistics. Just because some statistical > factors correlate with race doesn't mean one is being > racist; they are just optimizing their selection process. It's still not very good thinking, ethically or pragmatically. Even if you could 100% accurately determine a candidate's background from looking at their resume, and even if you could be sure that people from their background were more likely to be "bad" people[1] then couldn't you also look at "Jamal's" resume and conclude: "Obviously, Jamal must be a talented guy to rise above his background and pursue a technical career?" In the end, it's all guesswork anyway. Companies would be much better served by sticking to the facts on "Jamal's" resume and checking themselves whenever they catch themselves inventing fictional histories for people based on a candidate's name and their own racist prejudices and stereotypes. _____ [1] To be clear: I don't agree that either of these things are true.