[cycomanic]

It's funny how everyone brings up all these anecdotes, but then the reality is that there are plenty of studies that show that if your name is associated with being black you have much lower chances to be invited to an interview.

So seems like all this talk by HR people didn't really change any hiring practices. It's also funny how everyone is outraged by the DEI programs, instead of the real discrimination that is happening in hiring.

[WesolyKubeczek]

Hint: if everyone has such anecdotes, they are no longer anecdotes.

[Dylan16807]

It's enough to show that something isn't ultra rare, but it's not enough to show whether it's happening at 0.1% of companies or 90% of companies or where in between.

If someone is racist in a manner that's outweighed 10:1 by opposite racist practices, that's something we do want to stop, but it shouldn't be top priority and definitely shouldn't be treated as the example of what racism looks like these days.

[rayiner]

There is very little evidence of those “opposite racist practices” that are supposedly 10 times more common, at least in large corporations and universities. Microsoft was out there promising to double the percentage of black executives. Where is the big corporations promising to double the number of white executives?

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

What do you think happens when one level of leadership sets a metric as a goal, and likely ties someone's bonus to that goal?

The metric-goal gets pushed down to lower hierarchy levels, and from then on, all it takes is turning a blind eye and you get the results we've seen in the court case I cited above. The smart ones just don't put it in writing.

[Dylan16807]

As mentioned a couple comments up, something like this: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/A-Discri... is way more impactful then some CEO choices.

I can't find the Microsoft thing, but apparently among fortune 500 companies only 1.6% of CEOs are black. Even double that would still be an extremely low number. So unless you think some truly cosmic random odds happened here, that 1.6% is evidence of lots of racism.

[JuniperMesos]

Why is that a low number? What is the correct percentage of Fortune 500 CEOs to be black, or any other specific ethnic background.

[rayiner]

These studies are misleading, because they try to create race signals by using names that are also class signals: https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-study-suggests-resea....

Also, the study suggests that, even with this flawed methodology, a bulk of industries are in the least discrimination category with only a 3% lower callback rate for “black sounding names.”

[Dylan16807]

Do you have any numbers for trying to correct for that factor?

And the bulk are not at 3%, the bulk are between 5 and 10. 3 was the absolute lowest.

Also you didn't mention the CEO thing, does that mean my numbers were sufficient to address that worry?

[heroprotagonist]

No, they're still anecdotes.

   anecdote   /'ænɪk,doʊt/
   noun
   short account of an incident (especially a biographical one)

[JuniperMesos]

A lot of the contemporary formal scientific process is done incredibly badly, for a variety of reasons including overt political bias on the part of individual scientists working in the academic system, pressure to publish any results including poor ones, and outright laziness and fraud. In general we shouldn't assume that if a bunch of public scientific studies purport to show that some phenomenon is happening, that that phenomenon is actually happening. It takes substantial time, effort, and experience to evaluate whether a claimed scientific result is valid; and all the moreso when that result has immediate political policy implications.