I don't believe that's true, but given you put that single sentence in lieu of rebuttal after a block containing more than one point...
Has there been a study which addresses that hypothesis? I would be interested to read it.
Which hypothesis and I doubt it.
I suspect you'd simply find something else to delay/deny/mitigate the damage from what a number of studies have been fairly clear in support of, which is the existence of white privilege/advantage, both historically and in the present.
With the same degrees, from the same colleges, in the same fields of study?
You need to understand that when you're dealing with a wide enough study the overall is meaningful, is itself a form of control. Or, as not all degrees or students possessing them are equal, looking across a large sample will produce results that have statistical and empirical value as equally general points. This is one of those. Further studies into particular degrees could produce, "But are they from the same college? Are they from the same college from people who have the same economic background?" And so forth. And I believe some of the material I've referenced went into particulars like that. I'll cast about for more later. Today's a full one and my time here is limited.
It would be a bit deceptive to make that claim without controlling for those variables, wouldn't it?
Not at all. If you were looking for that particular (and I think difficult to manage given how far down the rabbit hole you can go, supra) a finding. But if you were curious about how large populations performed or were treated in relation provided you have a large enough sample it's meaningful. And it's echoed in successful litigation and other data, as with arrests, prosecutions and sentencing disparities where the controlling variables for the crime are uniform noted in any number of serious studies reflecting poorly on the racial inequities demonstrable within the criminal justice system.
Your assumption, then, being that this is happening, undetected, all over the country? Alright. But realize that it is an assumption.
It's not an assumption. There are instances across the country yearly. Even the employer friendly EEOC recognizes that yearly in its report. And that's before you get into private suits, wins and settlements by corporations and small businesses caught in the act, so to speak.
What's an African-American name? And why wouldn't the same difficulties arise for a white guy with an African-American name?
It's in the material and supplemental I provided. If DeShaun Johnson is applying for a job most people will make a racial assumption. And if Greg Bower is applying, another and different assumption will be made. The latter question is largely without much merit, given we're addressing both the rule and its impact and not whether someone might name their second generation child of Swedish origin and stock LeQuan, though the surname would tend to confuse the issue or suggest the potential for interracial progeny.
Alright, I will read what you linked about Google.
Just go to the EEOC or research their findings. They reject a good deal that leads to successful suit, so they're a good canary on the problem. And they go after companies across the nation.
Still, unless race is the only variable, we can't possibly know if race is the cause of the disparity.
No, you really need to read the report I noted on racial names. It's not hard to see the impact or understand the methodology, but you have to wade in.
How do we know names like Wolfgang and Ursula wouldn't cause the same problems for people?
How do we know European names wouldn't play badly to people of European descent?
lain: It might be that someone with a Russian surname could have a less favorable response than someone with a French surname, I suppose. But white sounding names in general fare better than black sounding names, which is the point here. There are all sorts of interesting potential studies on the impact of perception outside of that and maybe one of them would make for a separate discussion and thread.
No one's crying about it, man.
No one is asking you to. And that's not really an answer on the actual point, is it.
No, I put the term in quotes for the same reason you did.
I use quotes referencing terms as used in the studies and articles I cite. You used "American-sounding" and "American" to make the point about the names given by your grandmother. You all seem fine with it, which is your right. But I'm noting the assumption in that, one that weds race to national identity. In that is part of the problem and part of the reason for Anglicizing identity on the part of many immigrants.
But come to think of it, for how many centuries should American moms name their babies John before you would consider that name to be American, too?
This isn't about what I think, but about how people respond and try as you do to negate it, your own personal/family example upholds the problem found in the impulse to fit in by assuming a traditional marker for a different ethnic and racial profile.
