Big Media has drilled into our heads that employers are racist. One way we “know” this to be true is by reviewing studies that send out resumes with distinctive black names, together with identical resumes with white-sounding names. The resumes with distinctive black names get fewer callbacks.
Totally proves racism, right?
Wrong. That is what today’s newsletter is about.
There is good reason to question whether race is really the dominant factor at issue in these studies. The more likely culprit is socio-economic status.
. . . .
The implicit assumption here is that potential employees who have recognizably black names are likely to possess the same characteristics as those who have names thought to be “white-sounding.” The only difference between the two groups, so the argument goes, is race. Therefore, if you, as a potential employer, are more queasy about hiring a Lakisha than an Emily, the reason is obvious: you are a racist.
The problem here is that the underlying assumption is false. In fact, Roland Fryer and Steven Levitt did a study in 2004, which I bet you never heard about, which found that distinctively black names “provide a strong signal of socioeconomic status” and tend to be characteristic of the subset of black folks “living in racially isolated neighborhoods.”
The newsletter gives you all the links and data you need to refute this common leftist talking point.
Today’s newsletter is for paying subscribers only. The number is growing all the time. You have no excuse not to join up, really. I feel like I should provide the subscription link in the same format you see from those annoying pop-ups: