Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[shuttlt]

Good point, and that's certainly a limitation of the study. However, it's worth pointing out that employers erroneously perceiving black names as low socio-economic status is, in fact, racist. In addition, the study's authors aren't saying socio-economic discrimination doesn't exist. In fact, they find such discrimination via the different responses for different zip codes.

If employers are perceiving names that are correlated with low socio-economic status as being of low socio-economic status, is it racist for them to also do this with black names (that are correlated with low socio-economic status)? Surely it's the effect after you've factored out class that is racist, no?

This study acknowledges the possibility of the confounder, but fails to do anything about it.

Are you arguing that those names aren't correlated with low socio-economic status, or that the study successfully accounted for this, or that infering low socio-economic status from the correlation of "black" names and low socio-economic status, assuming the same is done for other groups, is racist?

 

[squealpiggy]

Good point, and that's certainly a limitation of the study. However, it's worth pointing out that employers erroneously perceiving black names as low socio-economic status is, in fact, racist.

Except it isn't. In the article and study I linked to it was established that distinctively black names are indicators of low socioeconomic status. So people associating distinctively black names with low socioeconomic status isn't racism, it's accurate!

In addition, the study's authors aren't saying socio-economic discrimination doesn't exist. In fact, they find such discrimination via the different responses for different zip codes.

They're saying that discrimination based on class exists but only in the areas where they're not claiming racism.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Except it isn't. In the article and study I linked to it was established that distinctively black names are indicators of low socioeconomic status. So people associating distinctively black names with low socioeconomic status isn't racism, it's accurate!

It's both. It's correct that on average people with such names will be of lower socio-economic status, and it's racist to assume that they are of lower socio-economic status without actually checking.

 

[shuttlt]

Aversive Racism and Selection Decisions (College students in a study showed racial discrimination in simulated hiring decisions for marginal candidates)

I was reading this one until I got to the point where they were making up pretend black and white students. They made the pretend black applicants a member of the Black Student Union and the pretend white applicants a member of a fraternaty because the fraternaties were pretty much exclusively white.

Is this the 1950s? What kind of university is it where it wouldn't be plausible to have your fake black candidate a member of a fraternity?

 

[shuttlt]

It's both. It's correct that on average people with such names will be of lower socio-economic status, and it's racist to assume that they are of lower socio-economic status without actually checking.

Why is it racist to assume that people whose names are corrolated with low socio-economic status are of low socio-economic status? Does anybody have a study to show that this is only done with black names?

 

[blutoski]

I think they'd have a problem, certainly with the existing data set. We've got a study that says the naming habits of white people carries significantly less social information than the names of black people. We have another study that has a bunch of white names that may well carry little information about the background of the holder. You probably want a cluster of strongly high status names in there and a cluster of strongly low status names. All we have is a a bunch of blah white names whose mothers education level all look excellent when compared with all of the black mothers. With the black names, you only have the "low status" ones.

I think you'd struggle to seperate the effects of the variables here.

I see what you're saying - they've omitted a category.

 

[shuttlt]

I see what you're saying - they've omitted a category.

Exactly. If you had some white trash names in there, maybe you could get somewhere.

 

[squealpiggy]

It's a little more complicated when there is an intersection, but this is not an unusual challenge - it's addressed with multiple regression analysis. We could review their stats to see if they used an accepted approach.

I'll never argue against the complexity of social issues!

It's both. It's correct that on average people with such names will be of lower socio-economic status, and it's racist to assume that they are of lower socio-economic status without actually checking.

I disagree. One may find a similar level of prejudice against candidates with names like "Krystal" or "Kane" without it being racism against white people.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Except it isn't. In the article and study I linked to it was established that distinctively black names are indicators of low socioeconomic status. So people associating distinctively black names with low socioeconomic status isn't racism, it's accurate!

Further to what Kevin's said, we come back to me asking why this is the case. Why are people with "black" names of a lower class than those without?

I'd say that the reasons are no doubt complex, but part of it will be a feedback loop whereby black families moving up from the lower classes or who are in the higher classes will tend to name their children with more neutral or white-sounding names because of the negative perception of black-sounding names, but this trend in itself reinforces the negative perception of black-sounding names. Which, I would say, is a clear-cut case of ingrained, socially-mandated racism.

Plus, of course, if people with black-sounding names cannot get good jobs, then there's no way for people with black-sounding names to ever be anything other than working class. Another feedback loop which, again, is indicative of ingrained, socially-mandated racism.

We were talking earlier about the possibility of racism in the absence of any actual racists. I think that some of this fits that description perfectly.

 

[shuttlt]

"Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do" (finding employers were less likely to hire black ex-offenders rather than white ex-offenders)

I can only get to the abstract of this one.

 

[shuttlt]

I'd say that the reasons are no doubt complex, but part of it will be a feedback loop whereby black families moving up from the lower classes or who are in the higher classes will tend to name their children with more neutral or white-sounding names because of the negative perception of black-sounding names, but this trend in itself reinforces the negative perception of black-sounding names. Which, I would say, is a clear-cut case of ingrained, socially-mandated racism.

But we've already been over a study that showed that name was not a predictor of future socio-economic status once you'd factored in the socio-economic status at birth. The name is a consequence, not a cause.

 

[shuttlt]

Plus, of course, if people with black-sounding names cannot get good jobs, then there's no way for people with black-sounding names to ever be anything other than working class. Another feedback loop which, again, is indicative of ingrained, socially-mandated racism.

The same study said that if you had a "black" name, but were born in a nice neighbourhood, you'd do just as well as if you'd been called Brad or Jane. If you were born in a terrible neighbourhood, being called Brad or Jane wasn't going to be much help getting out of it.

 

[squealpiggy]

Further to what Kevin's said, we come back to me asking why this is the case. Why are people with "black" names of a lower class than those without?

It's tautological but it's because people of lower social classes are the ones that choose those sorts of names for their children. The social status is not a consequence of the name, it's vice versa.

I'd say that the reasons are no doubt complex, but part of it will be a feedback loop whereby black families moving up from the lower classes or who are in the higher classes will tend to name their children with more neutral or white-sounding names because of the negative perception of black-sounding names, but this trend in itself reinforces the negative perception of black-sounding names. Which, I would say, is a clear-cut case of ingrained, socially-mandated racism.

It would be if you didn't allow for the fact that white people of lower social classes also give children distinctively lower class names, most often by letter replacement or by using as a first name typically WASPish surnames. Conversely white people of either middle classes or aspirational classes will choose names that are less distinct in the same way that middle class and aspirtational black parents do.

It's not so much a black phenomenon to look for unique or distinctive names for your children as a class phenomenon.

 

[colander]

It's tautological but it's because people of lower social classes are the ones that choose those sorts of names for their children. The social status is not a consequence of the name, it's vice versa.

So, in other words, the reason that black people give their children lower class names is because black people are lower class than white people.

Classy!

It's not so much a black phenomenon to look for unique or distinctive names for your children as a class phenomenon.

Just like those beggars Trigg, Apple and Siri, am I right!

 

[squealpiggy]

So, in other words, the reason that black people give their children lower class names is because black people are lower class than white people.

Classy!

Terribly classy! Also not even remotely close to what I wrote!

Just like those beggars Trigg, Apple and Siri, am I right!

Another person who believes that class and wealth are the same thing.

 

[colander]

Terribly classy! Also not even remotely close to what I wrote!



Another person who believes that class and wealth are the same thing.

You still haven't told us what you think the difference is, friend. Is it a secret?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why is it racist to assume that people whose names are corrolated with low socio-economic status are of low socio-economic status?

I guess if you think that race was in no way part of their reasoning process you could argue that it's not technically racism, just some morally equivalent form of bigotry.

If the reasoning process went from noting a "black" name, to guessing they were of low socio-economic status, then racial identity is clearly part of that process and hence I'm comfortable calling it racism as opposed to non-racist bigotry.

Does anybody have a study to show that this is only done with black names?

I'd be surprised if they did, I think that racism and classism are both real things that happen.

 

[qwints]

I can only get to the abstract of this one.

Sorry, here's a better link.

Except it isn't. In the article and study I linked to it was established that distinctively black names are indicators of low socioeconomic status. So people associating distinctively black names with low socioeconomic status isn't racism, it's accurate!

First, what Kevin Lowe said. Second, the study showed employers still called black names in high wealth zip codes less, and didn't favor "higher education mother" names over "lower education mother" names. The strongest argument for your position in Fryer and Levitt is

a woman with a BNI equal to 100 (implying a name that no Whites have) is 20.9 percentage points more likely to have been born to a teenage mother and 31.3 percentage points more likely to have been born out-of-wedlock than a Black woman living in the same zip code with the same age and education, but carrying a name that is equally common among Whites and Blacks. The woman with a Black name is also much more likely to have been born in a Black neighborhood, to herself be unmarried, to have had lower birth weight, and to have given birth to more children.

But the study doesn't attempt to differentiate between the socio-economic circumstances of various names in the way Bertrand and Mullainathan did. Instead, it treats all uniquely black names as equal, which doesn't appear to be the case per the education data Bertrand and Mulainathan used. That's fine in a study, but using that sort of data for an actual employment decision would be racist.

 

[shuttlt]

I guess if you think that race was in no way part of their reasoning process you could argue that it's not technically racism, just some morally equivalent form of bigotry.

That's not what I've said. It's just that this study can't tell you whether what they observed was due to racism, or some other judgement, such as one based on low socio-economic status which the authors note is a possibility and then fail to do anything to address.

If the reasoning process went from noting a "black" name, to guessing they were of low socio-economic status, then racial identity is clearly part of that process and hence I'm comfortable calling it racism as opposed to non-racist bigotry.

In the same way that noting the name "bubba" was on the CV and discriminating him? Do white names get discriminated against? The study didn't try to find out.

I'd be surprised if they did, I think that racism and classism are both real things that happen.

Sure. But it would be good maybe if somebody did a study to try and find out how much of an impact each of those had. Socio-economic status at birth certainly has a significant impact on life chances. Doubtless race does also.

 

[shuttlt]

But the study doesn't attempt to differentiate between the socio-economic circumstances of various names in the way Bertrand and Mullainathan did. Instead, it treats all uniquely black names as equal, which doesn't appear to be the case per the education data Bertrand and Mulainathan used. That's fine in a study, but using that sort of data for an actual employment decision would be racist.

It could well be that there is significant variability within the "black" names. I'm a a bit bothered by the data showing that the best "black" name was way worse than the worst "white" name in terms of mothers education. I wonder what would happen if they had more data and more names. Maybe some names cross over more between different communities.

In any case, the employers may well be unable to pick up on the social cue to the level of being able to identify differences between individual "black" names. I couldn't tell you if there was a difference between the "white" bubba, or cletus... perhaps there is?