getting woke and SL

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Drayke Newall said:

On 6/24/2020 at 11:01 AM, Luna Bliss said:

employers thought Whites were more capable than Blacks overall, even though both had equal qualifications for the job. 

Not denying it doesn't happen, however as a business owner I can say there is a lot more to a resume than you think and these experimental studies may have jumped to a biased conclusion depending on how those people conducting the study understand the intricacies of resumes.

The study I referenced was from a graduate level Social Work class at a good school, though of course that is no guarantee of a perfectly constructed experiment. At the time I was convinced the variables were controlled well, and that correlations were high for racial bias. This was a test somewhat before 2000 though, so a bit dated. More recent research:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/
https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf
~~~~~~~
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews
http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Whitening MS R2 Accepted.pdf

[Luna Bliss]

7 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

7 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

A poster in this thread brought up is it really racism or classism?  It's both, but classism I think is doing the most damage as the upper classes control most of the jobs and the real estate in some areas.  

Or is it a case where the problem is one of being traumatized by freedom, as this speaker eloquently puts it:

Couldn't it be all 3?  Racism, classism, and "being traumatized by freedom"?

[FairreLilette]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Couldn't it be all 3?  Racism, classism, and "being traumatized by freedom"?

Yes, but I think it has varying degrees depending upon where you live in the country.  

Upon looking up an article that Arielle Popstar brought up in regards to the book "White Guilt", I came across an article where Asians were suing Yale for what they considered being turned down and over-looked even though their scores were excellent.  What was most startling about the article is it eluded to the fact the White Ivy Leaguers tend to be "the governing body", and this needs added emphasis on 'the'.  The governing body of most of the United States is what it was referring too come out of the Ivy Leagues.  

As far as my ex sister in law who was Vice President of a Fortune 500 extremely famous company of a tech device most all of us use everyday, she'd come up with odd stories as to why she wouldn't be friends with a Black person, such as "oh, I was nearly attacked by a black man when was I was such and such an age and it scared me so I keep my distance" or some such nonsense.  The North East is very racist.  The white money for the vast majority only associate in friendships with people the same as them; they're circle - people of prestige and a long family history of money and they have their prestigious white upper middle class neighborhoods which I visited.   The classism itself is very delusional but they come up with odd ways to justify it such as lying about being attacked.   It's just seen as beneath them or there is danger in doing so but it's contrived to attempt to make a justified excuse as to why they won't associate with black people.  They won't open the door.  Their people are their people and that is not going to change because their marriages involve lineage and breeding.  They are just a different kind of people.  The scary and sad things is - most of the governing body of America comes out of the Ivy Leagues.  You can't change these people.  Many of these white women will not have a black man around them either.  It's considered not safe in their mind.  

Edit:  I'll tell you the rest of the story.  My ex husband's mother left everything in her will to my ex husband; she left her Ivy League son nothing.  After the death of my ex husband's mother and the finalizing of the will, my ex husband disowned both his brother and his wife.  My ex husband will not ever speak to his brother nor sister in law again.  They are very rich conniving people in my ex husband's mind and he doesn't want to have anything to do with them because of the way they are, like they are above everyone.   My ex has been living in California since he was 19.  California is his home now.   But, Philadelphia is one of the most racist places I've ever encountered.  Research it on the internet.  Some may be shocked about it.  

Edited June 26, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Akane Nacht]

20 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

This very well may be true where you live, Akane  (you mentioned a Chinese speaking country?)  But the situation in the US is very different

I have not spent any significant time in America, that much is true. I have visited a couple times on business. I recall one visit to San Francisco where I observed something that shocked me. I saw people clearly suffering from mental illness, and by their state possibly living on the street. People around them simply gave them a wide berth as if it's normal. These people were a mix of ethnicities, including caucasians. 

That was 20 years ago, so perhaps it's better now. But from this, I think the reasons for social inequality and persistent poverty are probably complex there too.

ps. we have 4 official languages actually 🙂 

[Beth Macbain]

42 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

The North East is very racist. 

This is why I asked if you’d traveled outside of LA.

Beverly Hills is very racist. Pasadena is very racist. Glendale is very racist. Hollywood is very racist. San Diego, racist. Riverside, San Bernardino, Palmdale, Bakersfield, Barstow, Sacramento, Huntington Beach, Fresno... California is racist. It isn’t some magical bubble that has eliminated racism.

When you point out how racist other areas of the country are, especially ones you’ve never spent any time in, without acknowledging it is right on your doorstep as well, you’re making racism a SEP - Someone Else’s Problem - when it’s an All Of Us problem.

There are 88 hate groups in California, and quite a few of those are in LA. Hate crimes are on the rise in Los Angeles County, highest they’ve been in a decade. 50% of those hate crimes are racially motivated. 

You have convinced yourself that California is different from the other 49 states.

It isn’t. 

 

[FairreLilette]

8 minutes ago, Akane Nacht said:

I have not spent any significant time in America, that much is true. I have visited a couple times on business. I recall one visit to San Francisco where I observed something that shocked me. I saw people clearly suffering from mental illness, and by their state possibly living on the street. People around them simply gave them a wide berth as if it's normal. These people were a mix of ethnicities, including caucasians. 

That was 20 years ago, so perhaps it's better now. But from this, I think the reasons for social inequality and persistent poverty are probably complex there too.

ps. we have 4 official languages actually 🙂 

Yes, we have homeless people in California.  After the movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest", then former President Ronald Reagan closed the mental hospitals.  I think this was a terrible mistake.  Most of what you saw though are drug addicts and/or alcoholics.  California has one of the worst drug infested areas in the world.  Be blessed you haven't grown up in the midst of a drug war as I have which never seems to get any better quite honestly.  It just never seems to get any better and I don't know why.  You can find drugs anywhere and everywhere in California, and that's the one thing I really hate about California - the drug pushers.   I'm sure at least 10 men in the building where I live could find drugs within one hour, it's that bad.  Drugs are around every corner.  

Due to COVID-19, the homeless have been sheltered for months now.  See, the problem was it was thought you cannot help a person off drugs or alcohol if they don't want help, so it's just been let them go and let them be homeless since Reagan closed the mental hospitals.  Things may change regarding the homeless situation, at least in Southern California.  I hope so anyways.   But, with COVID-19 now, the government is considering it not safe to have homeless people; I'd think the Reagan decision will most likely be over-turned because it was a bad decision.   The drugs and alcohol have caused their mental illness; illegal street drugs are a highly toxic poisons that can destroy both our minds and our bodies.  Hopefully, things will change soon.  Finally.  

[FairreLilette]

11 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

This is why I asked if you’d traveled outside of LA.

Beverly Hills is very racist. Pasadena is very racist. Glendale is very racist. Hollywood is very racist. San Diego, racist. Riverside, San Bernardino, Palmdale, Bakersfield, Barstow, Sacramento, Huntington Beach, Fresno... California is racist. It isn’t some magical bubble that has eliminated racism.

When you point out how racist other areas of the country are, especially ones you’ve never spent any time in, without acknowledging it is right on your doorstep as well, you’re making racism a SEP - Someone Else’s Problem - when it’s an All Of Us problem.

There are 88 hate groups in California, and quite a few of those are in LA. Hate crimes are on the rise in Los Angeles County, highest they’ve been in a decade. 50% of those hate crimes are racially motivated. 

You have convinced yourself that California is different from the other 49 states.

It isn’t. 

 

Of course there are racists here but it depends on who you know. 

It's all relative.  The only truly racially biased people I've met in my whole life are my ex husband's brother and wife.  Now disowned.

My Father was in the entertainment business...I grew up around people of all colors, all religions, non religions.   My first boyfriend Lebanese, my parents loved him for who he was.  

I know Jewish people who live in Beverly Hills so I don't know how racist it is compared to the Ivy League area.   

However, search on the internet and look up how racist it is in the North East, the Mid Atlantic region because I've been there.   No blacks in the neighborhoods.  Zero.  

[Drayke Newall]

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

The study I referenced was from a graduate level Social Work class at a good school, though of course that is no guarantee of a perfectly constructed experiment. 

But that is the problem, they are conducted via a university as part of a graduate study. None of those posted in those links you provided show any form of Employer input as to what is good or bad in a resume. Master of Business schools don't teach what employers look for in applications and therefore without explicit correspondence between those students researching and an employer they will always come out with a flawed and potentially biased outcome.

When an business owner like myself looks at resumes a lot of what is included is meaningless as it is in point form and open to interpretation. Without giving the applicant the ability to write a paragraph explaining why each of their points in the resume matter the employer must make an interpretation of why that person included it in their resume. The onus is on the applicant to effectively use their communication skills within the resume to ensure that they adequately highlight in some way how what they have shown in their resume is going to help further that business in that specific field irrespective of race. That is also why the resume itself format wise is looked at as part of the process as how they write it and what they include shows their communication skills.

Taking a look at one of the studies you posted https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews I will break down a few of their points to show how their is bias when a employer is not given the chance to be part of the research team. Hopefully this will highlight to you in a positive way why such studies need to be looked at very carefully. 

Quote

she weighed whether to include her involvement in a black student organization: “If the employer is known for like trying to employ more people of color and having like a diversity outreach program, then I would include it because in that sense they’re trying to broaden their employees, but if they’re not actively trying to reach out to other people of other races, then no, I wouldn’t include it.”

With this point from the linked article I would say to the person as an employer who is looking at resumes, why include it at all? What does it bring to show how you are best suited for the job in question? You are applying for a specific job, not to make the workplace environment or their outreach program better. For example, if that person was applying for a job that entailed working with students that are disadvantaged racially as an employer I would look at her inclusion of involvement in a black student organisation as a positive that would be beneficial. If however, that person is applying for a job that is for a welding position, I would then just overlook that inclusion completely. Not because I judge the applicants based on race but purely because such an inclusion brings no benefit to that particular job and is just resume filler.

This is also why when you are taught (I hope) at university or school that EVERY resume you send has to be custom for that particular job. You are showing in your resume that those things you list as your experiences are going to be a good thing for that particular job and that aspect only.

Quote

Employers claiming to be pro-diversity discriminated against resumes with racial references just as much as employers who didn’t mention diversity at all in their job ads.

This next paragraph they mention proves my above mentioned point. The job advert listing that the employer doesn't discriminate isn't for you to prove that your x race or not. It is there to show that they wont bias against it. If you then go and include something in your resume trying to somehow show how being x race or being in x organisation is going to help with their diversity somehow when applying for a welding position (which is entirely irrelevant to the position advertised) then, you don't understand how to write a resume and it will negatively impact your chances as you are taking up a place in your resume where you could have placed an experience that is relevant to the job in question.

I'll also tell you a secret, a lot of the time I and I dare say most employers don't even look at the name of the applicant on the resume until after they have already thinned the applicant list. For example, in many business the employer will instantly discard any resume over 3 pages long or that are a single page. As harsh as it is, that is how it is. If you need more than 3 pages to explain why you should get the job or an interview through your resume then you are trying to hard, are over qualified, just proves that you cant stay in a job for long (no loyalty) or are including just irrelevant things. If you need only 1 page then you dont have enough experience or haven't tried hard enough.

Quote

“You can’t prove your English is good in a resume scan, but you can if you can get to the interview,”

This is incorrect you can prove it quite easily, through your experiences and references. For example, if I received a resume from a person with an Asian name that had all of their uni degrees from a different country, all her job experiences from a different country, all references from a different country etc then yes, I would question about their fluency in English. If they show however that they, whilst having all foreign degrees, have experience job wise or volunteer wise in an English speaking country and have included a reference with contact details from that same place. I would then take that as they can speak English well enough. Not because I am going to phone the reference provided up (I may though) but purely based on the fact that they have shown to me just through their resume and honesty that they have proven as such accurately.

I could go on but this is getting long.

TL;DR

Learn to write resumes correctly and also learn what employers are looking for. You're not writing a resume to prove how you as a particular race could help with a diversity program you are writing the resume to show how those things you have included in the resume will help that specific role applied for ONLY. It is usually never about race but ENTIRELY about how you show in written form who you are including your confidence in as such. As said, their may be bias against race in some cases but the majority I think irrespective of flawed studies that it is an entirely different reason they didn't get the job.

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by Drayke Newall

[Beth Macbain]

Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick.

[Drayke Newall]

3 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick.

Stop being discriminative. Jesus walked on water, he didn't need a pogo stick! 

[Elisaisabel Munro]

On 6/10/2020 at 3:39 PM, kali Wylder said:

Why it can feel hard to talk about racial inequality, and why you should do it anyway....

So, anyway, as i mentioned in a couple of other threads, the company I work for gave us a paid day off in response to the crazy whacked out state of the world these days, between the plague and the quarantine and 9 minute film of a black man killed by a white cop and the reaction it set off. I'm not black, and I do believe wholeheartedly that black lives matter.

Since I am white, I benefit by the racist status quo. This was not something I was aware of really, but I didn't have to be aware of it as I wasn't adversely affected by it. I'm not even sure how I even heard of the idea of wokeness.  I did know that it was slang for an awareness of something that I didn't have, that it was a "black" thing. And I knew I should be woke. And I knew I was not. 

So I did what I generally do about anything that troubles me, I went looking for answers on the internet and I found there were books tackling the issue and I started to read.  I read one called "I'm Still Here: Black Dignity in a World Made for Whiteness" by Austin Channing Brown and now I'm reading "White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism" by Robin DiAngelo. This white fragility is really difficult to read.  Not that it's not well written or is too complex to digest, but because of the way it makes me feel.

And since I love SL and I'm an introverted recluse whose only social outlet is SL, I would love to talk about it here.

It is easy to go to the extremes.   I think your country is really extreme.

I'm introvert too.. and I feel even tho I live in another country, It's a matter that is really controversial to talk about, and worse, to talk a little against it..

Mobs raging in the streets, in universities... I heard that thanx to BLM many places went out of police, and there were murders and more.  That's what you get for following an extremist minority group, or staying quiet in fear the mob call you "racist". 

No politician wants to go against them because it is a political suicide.

[Innula Zenovka]

8 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

Not denying it doesn't happen, however as a business owner I can say there is a lot more to a resume than you think and these experimental studies may have jumped to a biased conclusion depending on how those people conducting the study understand the intricacies of resumes.

I think you mean you're not denying it does happen, not that it doesn't,  but be that as it may, I think the point about institutional and systemic racism is that, when you look particular indicators -- in this case who gets appointed to particular jobs, but also educational outcomes, risk of being killed by the police, prison population, life expectancy, infant mortality rate,  deaths from Covid-19 and so on -- then it becomes clear that, whatever the particular circumstances that lead to someone getting a job or not, obtaining a university degree, going to prison, etc, that black people in the US and elsewhere fare considerably worse than white people.

Two possible explanations present themselves -- either that there's something wrong with black people, that makes them less employable, more likely to commit serious crimes, less healthy and less able to complete a college degree, or there's something wrong with the social and economic system that produces such unequal outcomes.

That is  either the people that fixing or the systems do that produce such unequal outcomes.    Which do you think it is? 

Edited June 26, 2020 by Innula Zenovka

[Drayke Newall]

2 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

I think you mean you're not denying it does happen, not that it doesn't,

Meh whatever just a grammatical mistake in a long post. Sue me.

2 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Two possible explanations present themselves -- either that there's something wrong with black people, that makes them less employable, more likely to commit serious crimes, less healthy and less able to complete a college degree, or there's something wrong with the social and economic system that produces such unequal outcomes.

That is  either the people that fixing or the systems do that produce such unequal outcomes.    Which do you think it is? 

I am not getting into a debate on what you posted in your reply as it is irrelevant to what I said about how an employer looks at an application or resume. That is to say, once again you missed the point entirely as systemic racism was not even mentioned or talked about in both the studies Luna provided or my or  Luna's posts. If you actually read what studies Luna was linking (which clearly you didn't and so once again got only half of the information), all of the resumes were provided to an employer with EQUAL qualifications and experiences for both black and white people and the studies were purely based on applicants leaving or not leaving out particulars about their race such as their unique name or some form of black/Asian etc. organisation they were part of etc (i.e. the studies weren't trying to prove systemic racism or its effects but, PURE racism based on you know actual race, appearance etc).

So I please ask that if your going to reply to something, read all the information first before trying to change the topic and showing you only have a one point agenda. This is the last time I reply to any of your posts as I am trying to have a civil meaningful conversation and don't want to be side tracked by someone that just skims a post and posts a reply that is not relevant to the topic I was discussing.

[Mollymews]

a pretty interesting paper on resume bias and selection is here

https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/KesslerLowSullivan_Revision1.pdf

some interesting insights from this:

1) in STEM white male candidates with 3.75 GPA are rated the equivalent of female and male minorities with 4.0 GPA

2) a 3.6 GPA and an internship with a marque name company is equal to 4.0 GPA without that internship

3) recruiters don't offer jobs to female candidates as often as they do to male candidates because the recruiters believe that male job applicants are more likely to accept a job offer than are females. Recruiters don't want to waste their time offering jobs to people who don't accept them

 

[Arielle Popstar]

10 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Couldn't it be all 3?  Racism, classism, and "being traumatized by freedom"?

The author Shelby Steele in the talk I linked makes a good case for the lack of faith in one's freedom to lead to a continuation of seeing oneself as being a lower class as well as blaming supposed ongoing racism for that. I suggest a listen to it if you haven't already as he makes some great points for anyone who may see them self as a minority. The relevant talk is only 17 minutes. 35:00 to around 52:00 minute mark.

[Arielle Popstar]

9 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

Upon looking up an article that Arielle Popstar brought up in regards to the book "White Guilt",

Just to clarify, the talk i linked has nothing to do with the article you quoted, nor your thoughts on it. I did look for a transcript of his talk but was unsuccessful unfortunately.

[Innula Zenovka]

35 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Meh whatever just a grammatical mistake in a long post. Sue me.

I am not getting into a debate on what you posted in your reply as it is irrelevant to what I said about how an employer looks at an application or resume. That is to say, once again you missed the point entirely as systemic racism was not even mentioned or talked about in both the studies Luna provided or my or  Luna's posts. If you actually read what studies Luna was linking (which clearly you didn't and so once again got only half of the information), all of the resumes were provided to an employer with EQUAL qualifications and experiences for both black and white people and the studies were purely based on applicants leaving or not leaving out particulars about their race such as their unique name or some form of black/Asian etc. organisation they were part of etc (i.e. the studies weren't trying to prove systemic racism or its effects but, PURE racism based on you know actual race, appearance etc).

So I please ask that if your going to reply to something, read all the information first before trying to change the topic and showing you only have a one point agenda. This is the last time I reply to any of your posts as I am trying to have a civil meaningful conversation and don't want to be side tracked by someone that just skims a post and posts a reply that is not relevant to the topic I was discussing.

For heaven's sake,  if you had actually bothered to read the article to which Luna linked, you would have seen that the experimenters sent out resumes identical save for the names of the applicants, which were altered to by typically white names or typically black names.

"We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond
with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate
perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very
White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American
names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects
the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more
callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better
neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The
amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and
employers who list “Equal Opportunity Employer” in their ad discriminate as much as other
employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something
other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination
is still a prominent feature of the labor market"

https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

Either the people considering the applications were consciously rejecting the ones they thought were from black applicants or they were, without realising it, reading them more or less critically depending what they imagined the applicant looked like.     I suspect the latter possibility is more likely -- that is, while people weren't  consciously biased, they were, nevertheless, more likely to call applicants with names that sounded white to them.

 

 

[Drayke Newall]

26 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

a pretty interesting paper on resume bias and selection is here

https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/KesslerLowSullivan_Revision1.pdf

some interesting insights from this:

1) in STEM white male candidates with 3.75 GPA are rated the equivalent of female and male minorities with 4.0 GPA

2) a 3.6 GPA and an internship with a marque name company is equal to 4.0 GPA without that internship

3) recruiters don't offer jobs to female candidates as often as they do to male candidates because the recruiters believe that male job applicants are more likely to accept a job offer than are females. Recruiters don't want to waste their time offering jobs to people who don't accept them

 

A far better study than those posted by Luna as it clearly shows how they went about it in a more controlled environment. Additionally providing examples of the resumes provided.

I would still argue there are flaws with their study, as do they however, it certainly is interesting. I would be interested in what the employers would have had to say as to why they believe females are less likely to accept the job. Was it due to previous experience in where it has been a case that they have seen more knockbacks from females in the past or based on pure discrimination.

Also found it interesting reading this snippet: "We find no evidence that employers are less interested in female or minority candidates on average, but we find evidence of discrimination among employers recruiting STEM candidates"

It certainly does bring an interesting case study especially, since it has shown in the study that on average there is no evidence of discrimination in other non STEM fields against minorities or females. As a STEM business, I would be interested in finding out why the study found that in this area there was more bias. Is it pure discrimination or does it come down to other such things such as research showing males consistently outperform females with spatial awareness, which is something needed in such STEM fields like engineering and architecture?

Thanks for the good read Molly!

[LiberaLibera]

 

[Arielle Popstar]

5 minutes ago, LiberaLibera said:

 

That is a GREAT video!! Please pay attention Liberals!

[FairreLilette]

6 hours ago, Elisaisabel Munro said:

It is easy to go to the extremes.   I think your country is really extreme.

I'm introvert too.. and I feel even tho I live in another country, It's a matter that is really controversial to talk about, and worse, to talk a little against it..

Mobs raging in the streets, in universities... I heard that thanx to BLM many places went out of police, and there were murders and more.  That's what you get for following an extremist minority group, or staying quiet in fear the mob call you "racist". 

No politician wants to go against them because it is a political suicide.

It was thought in the 1960's that during The Civil Rights Movement and The Women's Rights Movement that our government was a sham, favoring only money.  Our government is hired to uphold our rights.  Our government is hired to work for us.  It accomplishes this sometimes but it's still a sham run by money.

See the people of the United States do not get to vote for the president.  The people get to have a popular vote but the popular vote does not elect the president.   An electoral collage elects the president of the United States and much favoritism comes into play this way.   We are not even allowed to see a show of hands of the electoral collage as to whom voted for the president.  So, it's a blind faith election.  

As far as the police in the United States of America they went against the 9th Amendment of the United States Constitution and voted unto themselves something called qualified immunity.  In short, if the police hurt a person, they have declared immunity to not be held responsible.  The police are the government.  The police are not allowed to enact laws.  Only the people of the United States are allowed to vote in and enact laws.  So, this is extremist with the police and it's against our United States Constitution.  

As far as the American government being a sham, part of it is.  Former President Obama is calling the Trump presidency "shambolic" which could be "an extreme sham".  It was thought Hilary Clinton won the presidency.  Which only leaves people wondering...can the presidency be bought?  I'm sure it can/has/will.  

People are fighting against this because some of what the police have been doing is illegal and Fascist.     

Edited June 26, 2020 by FairreLilette

[Arielle Popstar]

9 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

 

Also found it interesting reading this snippet: "We find no evidence that employers are less interested in female or minority candidates on average, but we find evidence of discrimination among employers recruiting STEM candidates"

It certainly does bring an interesting case study especially, since it has shown in the study that on average there is no evidence of discrimination in other non STEM fields against minorities or females. As a STEM business, I would be interested in finding out why the study found that in this area there was more bias. Is it pure discrimination or does it come down to other such things such as research showing males consistently outperform females with spatial awareness, which is something needed in such STEM fields like engineering and architecture?

Thanks for the good read Molly!

Possibly it correlates to findings of bias in top legal firms who see women as perhaps being less dedicated owing to potential marriage and or kids which would risk the investment they have put into them by that point.

[FairreLilette]

47 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Just to clarify, the talk i linked has nothing to do with the article you quoted, nor your thoughts on it. I did look for a transcript of his talk but was unsuccessful unfortunately.

I had to look through my history to find it.  It's an article written by Steele.  

https://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?id=116

[Drayke Newall]

2 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

For heaven's sake,  if you had actually bothered to read the article to which Luna linked, you would have seen that the experimenters sent out resumes identical save for the names of the applicants, which were altered to by typically white names or typically black names.

OMG its like hitting my head against the wall. DID YOU READ WHAT I SAID? Let me quote myself:

Quote

all of the resumes were provided to an employer with EQUAL qualifications and experiences for both black and white people and the studies were purely based on applicants leaving or not leaving out particulars about their race such as their unique name or some form of black/Asian etc. organisation they were part of etc

Look, I bolded it for you in both my and your post. See that right there? That is me saying the exact thing you said. Do you need me to also show it in a bigger font now so you can see it even clearer? Perhaps you need it in a different font like red, or orange? What you missed is, that the study is flawed in the aspect that a) the resumes were identical except for the names and b) it was a study that wasn't controlled as it put all of those resumes in a real world situation where they were NOT just competing against those specific resumes but hundreds from other people across the area.

As for point a): I answered this by showing that due to it not being controlled many of those resumes would have been overlooked as they would have appeared fishy to an employer seeing people with EXACLTY the same qualifications and experiences and skills. They also provided NO example of their resumes sent to tell it differently. Secondly I also showed that businesses don't just look at your qualifications but also many other things that you cant seem to understand as all you see is RACE issues. I even mentioned that before an employer even looks at a resume they cull them based on page size.

This is also why in my second post I didn't use Luna's first posted study in my example but another article posted by Luna. In that I then further showed how those very same minorities were negatively impacting their chances by not writing a resume properly. It wasn't because the employer was discriminating by race, it was because the applicants themselves were either including things in their resume that shouldn't be there or because they were leaving out massive positives such as the one who left out that he won a scholarship to a prestigious college.

As for b) they were competing with hundreds of people in a real world environment. Who is to say that other black or minority persons were not phoned back that were not part of the 50 Resumes (or however many) sent through to those employers by the researchers. To put it a better way, they probably did phone back others of varying racial backgrounds just not those from the study hence why I also said it was FLAWED.

Quote

Either the people considering the applications were consciously rejecting the ones they thought were from black applicants or they were, without realising it, reading them more or less critically depending what they imagined the applicant looked like.     I suspect the latter possibility is more likely -- that is, while people weren't  consciously biased, they were, nevertheless, more likely to call applicants with names that sounded white to them.

Or it could be that you seem to think employers cant tell fake resumes from real ones or that the study was flawed due to competing with other people not part of the study and hence a large portion of people that may have received calls didn't get noticed by the researchers.

Take note of the far better study that Mollymews posted. They clearly acknowledge that employers can tell fake resumes as well as acknowledging that the other studies such as that Luna posted WERE FLAWED and therefore came up with a far better way to complete their study in a much better controlled environment. They actually told the employers they were fake resumes and therefore specifically controlled the testing environment by having them ONLY look at those fake applicants.

Also notice their response and findings regarding the majority of job fields other than STEM. Look I will quote it for you:

Quote

We find no evidence that employers are less interested in female or minority candidates on average

Not all research papers are the same, some are good others are bad. Just like some people (based on the real word, i.e. not a study - proven but the other articles Luna posted) automatically play the race card when a person doesn't get a position yet clearly hampered their own chances by not including things in the resume they should have or because they including things they shouldn't.

I can tell those in the first study are not an employer and have never had to sift through hundreds of applications or resumes as they clearly don't know how employers read resumes. The study MollyMews posted shows that they do know to some degree and actually involved the employers feedback, something the other study Luna posted didn't even do so it created a skewed bias based purely on the researchers interpretation of why x didn't get a call.

Congratulations you have also made my block list and join the esteemed company of only one other person who was a spammer years ago. 👏

Edited June 26, 2020 by Drayke Newall

[Drayke Newall]

37 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Possibly it correlates to findings of bias in top legal firms who see women as perhaps being less dedicated owing to potential marriage and or kids which would risk the investment they have put into them by that point.

This may be true. I recall years ago my old employer looked very harshly at female applicants on the basis that he would have to pay a female not only full pay maternity leave for 7 months (12 months now) but also her replacement for those 7 months resulting in an unsustainable financial situation for him, or so he said.