Job candidates with stereotypically white names received 50% more callbacks for interviews than those with black names, according to a 2004 research. Scientists have now revived the study, and while the findings are not as bad as they were twenty years ago, they still suggest that hiring processes are still potentially influenced by racial prejudice. In a recent working paper titled "A Discrimination Report Card," according to NPR, researchers from UC Berkeley and the University of Chicago submitted 83,000 fraudulent applications for 11,000 entry-level positions at over 100 Fortune 500 companies. The 2004 research and a North Carolina database of speeding charges were the sources of the false identities used on the applications.
If it was determined that the names were "racially distinctive"—that is, "if more than 90% of people with that name shared the same race"—then the names were given to specific race groups, according to NPR. In effect, this meant that "Darnell and Lamar faced out against candidates with names like Brad and Greg. Kristen and Amanda battled it out for employment with Latoya and Ebony." The average company phoned back candidates who seemed to be White almost 9% more often than those who appeared to be Black, with some of the most egregious offenders coming in significantly higher, according to study findings. Although the original experiment was carried out in 2021, the researchers are now disclosing the performance of particular firms as well.
Kroger, Hilton, and Dr. Pepper are among the companies that seem to be the least discriminating; AutoNation and Genuine Parts, on the other hand, had a discrepancy rate of almost 25%. NPR reports on an intriguing finding: Organizations with more centralized and structured HR departments seemed to have less differences in this area. Career consultant Dorianne St Fleur tells the outlet that hiring practices may reduce racial prejudice by standardizing and anonymizing the process, improving staff training, and requiring job hopefuls to go through numerous recruiters. As for rejected candidates, St. Fleur advises them not to be too harsh on themselves if they sense prejudice. An employer rejecting you "does not mean you suck, you are not a good worker, you do not deserve this thing," the woman claims. "It is just the nature of the systemic forces at play."
If it was determined that the names were "racially distinctive"—that is, "if more than 90% of people with that name shared the same race"—then the names were given to specific race groups, according to NPR. In effect, this meant that "Darnell and Lamar faced out against candidates with names like Brad and Greg. Kristen and Amanda battled it out for employment with Latoya and Ebony." The average company phoned back candidates who seemed to be White almost 9% more often than those who appeared to be Black, with some of the most egregious offenders coming in significantly higher, according to study findings. Although the original experiment was carried out in 2021, the researchers are now disclosing the performance of particular firms as well.
Kroger, Hilton, and Dr. Pepper are among the companies that seem to be the least discriminating; AutoNation and Genuine Parts, on the other hand, had a discrepancy rate of almost 25%. NPR reports on an intriguing finding: Organizations with more centralized and structured HR departments seemed to have less differences in this area. Career consultant Dorianne St Fleur tells the outlet that hiring practices may reduce racial prejudice by standardizing and anonymizing the process, improving staff training, and requiring job hopefuls to go through numerous recruiters. As for rejected candidates, St. Fleur advises them not to be too harsh on themselves if they sense prejudice. An employer rejecting you "does not mean you suck, you are not a good worker, you do not deserve this thing," the woman claims. "It is just the nature of the systemic forces at play."
