The Melting Pot 2009: Job Applicants Choose Assimilation as Means of Economic Survival

by Special Correspondent Wendi Muse

melting potWhen I hear the words Ellis Island, one of the first things I think of is not the New York point of interest or tiring travel across waters to reach the grand goal of the U.S. of A. and its related Dream. The first words that come to mind for me are “name changes” and “assimilation.” But with the recent economic crisis and the lagging recovery process, Ellis Island comes to mind. Only this time, instead of Eastern Europeans, Italians or the Irish knocking on the door of American opportunity, only to learn that their identities must be altered or ensconced, their traditional cultures erased for the sake of infinitely approaching some Nordic white ideal, the group scrambling for the promised land of economic security and job market acceptance is black.

That’s not to say that blacks in America have never sought assimilation as a means of achieving social acceptance and equality, in fact both during and following slavery, some black Americans employed various methods of mirroring the white majority as they recognized it could mean a chance at social and class mobility. Black immigrant groups arriving to America also faced a similar challenge. Having lived in countries where race-based terminology and categorization, media representation, and general opinion of blacks may have varied from those in the United States, only to arrive and gain an externally-defined identity based on perceptions of black Americans, black immigrants may also have felt or still feel the pressure to change or deny elements of their culture, nationality, ethnicity, and ultimately race.

In the aftermath of the recession, as the competition for the limited jobs that are available has sharpened, few applicants have room for error. Unfortunately for blacks living in the United States, one possible means of avoiding the potential disaster of not even getting a foot in the door at hiring companies is deleting any and all signs of their race. It is common knowledge that “ethnic sounding” names or, in other words, names that are not of Western European, particularly Anglo-Saxon origin, often lead to discriminatory hiring practices.* Even among these names, there are specific ethnic groups whose names are least welcome in the corporate world. Unfortunately, blacks are often the common victims of this discrimination, the bearers of African-American names, despite their qualifications, often being relegated to the bottom of the résumé stack. 

However, most of the fears of being rejected from job opportunities are spread through anecdotes or are the result of self-fulfilling prophecy based on a perception of inadequacy from simply being black (i.e. assuming the hiring party is white and would not be interested in taking on a black employee, thus not applying for the job at all), research often following as a result. Several studies comparing the successes (or lack thereof) of blacks and their white peers have been conducted (particularly as a means of measuring the success of affirmative action policy implementation and its continued need), though all ended with the same result: even with equal levels of educational and occupational experience, white candidates are more likely to be hired following the interview process than blacks.

In light of these studies, the pressure of being hired during a recession, and the discrimination based on racial markers as mentioned above, the New York Times recently released an article on history repeating itself entitled “In Job Hunt, College Degree Can’t Close the Racial Gap.” In the article, one of the few attempts made by the Times to report on the effect the recession has had on those other than wealthy whites, author Michael Luo points out with frank honesty that the push for obtaining a college degree has done little to help blacks gain footing as they compete with other applicants. Any indication of their blackness on their résumé alone could be a hindrance to their job search success.

Noting the false sense of temporary confidence Obama’s success in being voted the nation’s first black President may have given Americans of all colors in terms of progress and hope for race relations, Luo explains that little has changed when it comes to racial inequity:

That race remains a serious obstacle in the job market for African-Americans, even those with degrees from respected colleges, may seem to some people a jarring contrast to decades of progress by blacks, culminating in President Obama’s election.

But there is ample evidence that racial inequities remain when it comes to employment. Black joblessness has long far outstripped that of whites. And strikingly, the disparity for the first 10 months of this year, as the recession has dragged on, has been even more pronounced for those with college degrees, compared with those without. Education, it seems, does not level the playing field — in fact, it appears to have made it more uneven.

Luo goes on to profile applicants who have resorted to referring to themselves in their résumés by names that they normally do not use:

. . . Barry Jabbar Sykes, 37, who has a degree in mathematics from Morehouse College, a historically black college in Atlanta, now uses Barry J. Sykes in his continuing search for an information technology position, even though he has gone by Jabbar his whole life.

“Barry sounds like I could be from Ireland,” he said.

This quotation by Mr. Sykes struck me as particularly ironic, and fit quite appropriately with my note that the process of “cleaning up” one’s ethnic identity in the present is a sign of social regression in the race relations continuum, particularly considering that the Irish once received considerable discrimination for not being quite the right type of white, if white at all. During the same time of the largest immigration of the Irish population to the Americas (1845-1849 as a result of the Great Famine), Dred Scott was suing for his freedom and his trial was going through state courts, and two decades later, black American slaves were given their freedom with the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment. Now, in 2009, a black American man hopes his name sounds more like that of one of the immigrants who were socially on as low a level as many of their black peers.

But with the unemployment rate for college educated black males 25 and older being double that of their white peers, 8.4% to 4.4%, respectively, the push to erase one’s blackness goes beyond name changes. Applicants have noted that any mention of black business associations, black fraternities and sororities, and any experience that may somehow hint at one’s racial background (i.e. writing for a black issues blog) could prove hazardous. To make matters worse, Luo notes, even Asian-American and Hispanic managers are more likely to hire whites than blacks. That is not to say that someone of non-white (Anglo) racial or ethnic origin should feel obligated to hire someone who is also nonwhite, but the fact that these practices reach beyond white managers and are committed by those who could potentially be more empathetic is alarming.

Other applicants in Luo’s article mention that if and when they get beyond the application stage and are actually called in for an interview, their chances at being hired do not increase. In fact, in-person interviews sometimes lead to more problems such as outright discrimination, shock and surprise that the applicant is black, and ultimately rejection for the position despite presumed stellar interviews and excellent applications. The rejection can be without motive, leaving the applicants to second-guess not only their skills, but also whether or not their race played a role in their not being hired:

Whether or not each case actually involved bias, the possibility has furnished an additional agonizing layer of second-guessing for many as their job searches have dragged on . . .

Many interviewed, however, wrestled with “pulling the race card,” groping between their cynicism and desire to avoid the stigma that blacks are too quick to claim victimhood. After all, many had gone to good schools and had accomplished résumés. Some had grown up in well-to-do settings, with parents who had raised them never to doubt how high they could climb.

Luo also mentions the impact of networking and connections that go beyond the typical hiring process. In spite of blacks becoming part of the ever-expanding American middle class as a result of more educational opportunities since the Civil Rights Era and subsequent increased inclusion in the workforce, one of the most damaging residual effects of segregation and social exclusion from whites (Jim Crow, anti-miscegenation laws, ghettoization of the black urban population by way of discriminatory housing laws and restricted covenant, racial profiling and imprisonment, etc), has been the fragmentation of black and white populations’ interaction (even with the end of its legal prohibition). By way of stigmatizing (legally and socially) black and white interaction, whites continued to align themselves with their own social networks and blacks were left to form their own, albeit less validated, community-based social networks and connections.

Edward Telles, author of Race in Another America: the Significance of Skin Color in Brazil, an amazing text based on his comparative studies of race relations in the United States and Brazil, notes that “Recent research in economic sociology shows that hiring, even in the modern employment sector in the United States, continued to be governed by social-network ties” (Telles, 163). I found that Telles’ observations about the Brazilian job market and related hiring practiced greatly mirrored those of the United States as reported by Luo:

Most recruiting and hiring for these jobs used networks and patronage systems. Such informal methods favor whites, so that employers often do not directly deny jobs to nonwhites. Rather, blacks and browns [note: people of multiracial backgrounds that include some percentage of African heritage] seem to be discriminated against by being denied access to these networks or they are less likely to know job sponsors. When they do have access, job sponsors and networks are likely to screen out nonwhites, and especially blacks, themselves. Job sponsors may mostly recommend other whites because they themselves prefer whites or assumer employers prefer whites. Similar, persons in networks with information about jobs, including those who currently hold such jobs, are also likely to recommend whites, especially because it may enhance their own status in the eyes of their employers. (Telles, 162)

In short, even before blacks can apply for a job, it is more likely than not to be discussed amongst and filled by whites. This is what might be the most frustrating aspect of the problem. The issue itself is hard to resolve simply because a big portion of the discrimination occurs by way of silent and often unintentional exclusion. Bias does not always play a direct role in the hiring or rejection of an applicant. Though hopefully with the continued participation of blacks in higher education and the corporate world, the networks can expand to include blacks or, at least, following the older model, blacks can continue to construct their own networks as a means of gaining acceptance into the higher levels of the formal labor sector.

One fear, however, is that such findings can be discouraging in terms of morale, possibly making self-fulfilling prophecy a recurring theme in the daily lives of black Americans. Another fear is that assimilation by way of identity erasure may become a normative means of achieving success, which is disturbing considering the advances so many people of color (including, but not limited to, blacks) have made without having to resort to it. What could this mean for future generations of blacks, and further, incoming immigrant groups to the United States, where pluralism is an accepted method of both governance and social interaction (at least, in public)? In some ways, is this fear of being initially “outed” as a nonwhite racial other, particularly a person of African descent, a sign that an American identity is being tightened in the wake of economic crisis?

*for more information, please refer to the study “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?” from The American Economic Review

(Image: “Melting Pot” political cartoon)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Bonne Vie - Wholestyle on the Web: Week of 12/11/2009 on 14 Dec 2009 at 3:23 pm

    [...] Racialicious: The Melting Pot 2009 – Job Applicants Choose Assimilation as Means of Economic Surviva… Black Americans are increasingly forced to delete signs of their race to find employment [...]

Comments

  1. atlasien wrote:

    A few years ago (before the recession) I developed a job hunting seminar for lower-income parents… one of the most shocking things I ran across while researching was the statistic that something like 75% of all job hires are not widely publicly listed. They’re only found through formal and informal networking. I included that statistic in the seminar and heavily advised people to do informal networking through organizations they’re already involved in, like church…. and also not to feel too bad, or get too downcast, if they show up somewhere based on a job ad and find 100 other people are already there filling out an application for the same position.

    I didn’t deal with this in the seminar but I’ve wrestled with the question myself, would I ever advise someone to change an “ethnic” name on a resume, just to get a foot in the door? It’s a tough question. Morals and ethics aside, does it really help?

    “Other applicants in Luo’s article mention that if and when they get beyond the application stage and are actually called in for an interview, their chances at being hired do not increase.”

    I wish there could be a really extensive study down on a covering strategy versus a don’t-cover strategy. My sense is that covering on your resume would sort of work… it would at least give you a slightly larger chance at getting hired. I just think that the people who judge resumes (usually an HR screener) are looking for any reasons to dismiss a resume in order to present the actual hiring manager with a smaller pool of candidates. If you can get past the screening, and get to the hiring manager stage, you get to someone whose potential racism is going to be balanced by greater desire to actually find the most qualified person, and there’s even a chance that the hiring manager might be of your same ethnic group.

  2. atlasien wrote:

    And I just want to add, it’s a question I’ve never been faced with myself, because I have a very Anglo name. And I definitely realize how much privilege that involves. I’ve had a lot of experiences where people do comical double-takes when meeting me because they obviously expected someone white, based on email and phone conversations.

    Asian names are certainly not as broadly job-prospect-killing as names marked African-American. But they have really negative outcomes in several regards. I’ve seen people become frustrated and almost angry when, upon meeting my father, they try to pronounce his name and he keeps correcting them until they get it right (usually they never get it right at all, it’s very difficult to pronounce for native English speakers). When the first time you meet someone, you feel inadequate because of their name, that really hurts networking prospects. It’s why a fair number of Asian immigrants change their last names as well as their first.

    Due to existing stereotypes Asian names probably help when getting hired for “technical” positions, and hurt when hiring for people-facing and communications-type positions.

  3. yolanda wrote:

    when i start applying for internships and/or job applications maybe i should just initial my first name and go by my middle, “Fay.” my parents almost named me Katherine (thank god that didn’t happen) but went with yolanda. it’s a rather ethnically ambiguous name, but you can be sure a potential employee would know whateve my ethnicity, it isn’t white.

  4. yolanda wrote:

    correction: whatever my race, since white isn’t an ethnicity.

  5. Wendi Muse wrote:

    what’s frustrating about the process, and what luo, and i, echoing luo and telles mention here is that it’s not just about a name. it’s about any resume-based articulation of one’s ethnic/racial identity. my name is Wendi Muse, and i have theprivilege of having an ethnicity/race-neutral name. however,when some of my writing experience and organizational affiliation is inluded on my resume, it’s easy to tell i am a person of color (or at least a white ally, if the people hiring are progressive enough to recognize that just because you write about poc issues doesn’t necessarily mean you are poc yourself).

    also, as i mention in my comments surrouding the telles quotation about networks in brazil, the significance of the people whom you know cannot be understated. whites have more access to these networks by default, particularly wealthy whites.

  6. Fatemeh wrote:

    Great post, Wendi. I’ve been sending out lots of resumes lately, and I often wonder if I should be choosing my names more carefully, or including a smiling picture on my resume… (sigh)

  7. Wendi Muse wrote:

    thanks, fatemeh. it’s funny you mention that because in many other countries, a photo is a typical component of resumes for job applications. in brazil, this struck me as particularly troubling considering that so many darker skinned people are discriminated against on the basis of their color, particularly in the job market.

    if america ever resorted to making this a norm, i am almost certain the activist groups and the ACLU would be up in arms about the likelihood of it leading to blatant hiring discrimination.

    though i am sure names also play a major role in what you are applying for in the first place. as atlasien noted, for some jobs, one’s ethnic/racial background can be viewed positively (as a result of stereotypes).

    oh life…

  8. atlasien wrote:

    @Wendi Muse:

    I think the United States is actually a bastion of racial equality when it comes to employment law.

    And things aren’t even that great here! It’s just that the situation is so much worse in so many other countries. The widespread practice of including head shots with resumes, for example. I know that’s a practice in Japan and Korea as well.

    For example, when I was staying in Mexico, I used to occasionally scan the Help Wanted ads. A lot of them had age ranges. For example, “looking for someone aged 18-25″. A lot of them also asked applicants to have “buena presentación” which translated to me as “good presentation”. It was a really confusing term… the only U.S. equivalent I could think of would be something like “professional image”. I asked a Mexican what it meant one day, and he said that buena presentación meant “don’t bother applying if you look too Indian.” I’m sure he was adding a touch of dark humor, but still, it struck me as a very disturbing codeword, and I’m glad that the U.S. has a comparatively better record when it comes to equal employment law.

    Even though our laws are stronger, in actually practice things are still pretty rough, because of all the extra-legal networking issues that you’re raising in this post.

  9. Wendi Muse wrote:

    atlasien,

    they have the SAME thing in Brazil, but they say “boa aparencia,” which basically means blacks (dark skin people of African descent) need not apply. as a result of this discrimination, a lot of people got together to make this term null and void. now people are not allowed to put it in their postings, though i’m sure it still shows up here and there, particularly in rural areas.

  10. HiringNow wrote:

    This is interesting to me, because I am sorting through hundreds of resumes RIGHT NOW, today, for a position. “Ethnic” or “non-ethnic” names are the LAST THING ON MY MIND (even though for the record, my own name is very very very ethnic).

    I read this post and thought, what is my order of importance to get out from this pile of applicants?

    This is how I have sorted through them:

    1) Referred by someone in our industry, or through an industry-specific organization? If yes, then top of pile, because I don’t have to explain to them what our industry is… If you at least express genuine interest, I’ll put you in the middle of the stack of resumes I have to go through later.

    2) Cover letter? If they sent one, I automatically assume they are more thorough than the people who just sent a resume blindly. If you didn’t write one, you go in the middle stack and I’ll get to you later.

    3) Did the cover letter address THIS job? Or was it a blind, fill-in-the-blank cover letter? If yes, then near the top of the pile. If no, bottom of the pile because they don’t care enough to research our company and are just looking for A job, not a job WITH US.

    4) Spelling and grammar. Is it good? Then you go near the top of the pile. Mistakes? Bottom or middle of the pile. Probably the bottom of the pile, because I have 100 resumes to sort through and I don’t want to deal with you.

    5) Skill set FOR THIS JOB. I have a very specific computer program you have to know for this job, and it’s mentioned at the top of the job posting. If you mentioned it in your resume, you go near the top of the pile. If you didn’t, you go near the bottom of the pile because you either don’t know it, didn’t read the job posting or weren’t thorough enough to care. So I’d rather hire someone who DID care enough. If you EXPRESS AN INTEREST in learning it, I’ll put you in the middle of the stack and consider you later.

    6) The rest of your skills. Do they apply to THIS JOB? This job, this job, this job. Can’t emphasize this enough.

    7) Then, and only then, do I start considering who I can respond to and eventually (if we’re both lucky) bring into the office for an interview. If I e-mail you back to ask you a question today, and you e-mail me back instantly with the right info I was looking for (spelled correctly! with the right grammar!) then you move to the top of the stack.

    If you don’t reply, or you reply in an uneducated way, you get lost in the shuffle. I’m dealing with a hundred resumes a day at this point. It’s as simple as that. I may or may not get to your resume eventually, but other people have already jumped the line ahead of you.

    So when I read news about people with ethnic names not getting job interviews, I have to wonder… Did researchers/applicants take the time to write a well-researched cover letter that refers to the job at hand? If it was just a general, fill-in-the-blank, send-it-to-a-hundred-companies-and-see-what-response-I-get letter, no wonder no one is calling them back.

    So I’m not sure if I buy that there’s some vast conspiracy to knock people with ethnic names out of the running for jobs as much as (perhaps) there’s a problem with people not specifically applying for the specific job at hand in a way that vaults them PAST other applicants.

    I would write more about this but I have to go back to sifting through resumes…

  11. Wendi Muse wrote:

    if you take the time to read through this whole piece, you’ll see it’s not JUST about names. there’s more to this (which both luo and i cover)

    and studies done with applicants with equal qualifications/skills/applications found that white applicants were still often chosen over those who were nonwhite…

  12. atlasien wrote:

    @HiringNow: Argh. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s simple bias. Conscious, semi-conscious or unconscious. And yes, studies done with the EXACT SAME RESUME and EXACT SAME COVER LETTER have shown vast differences in call-back rates for “ethnic names”. These are actually quite easy studies to perform so they’ve been duplicated many times with the same results.

    You’re a good, conscientious HR screener. Fine. A lot of other HR screeners suck, though. I’m not unfamiliar with the field, and it’s rather obvious to me how bias can become embedded in the process.

  13. HiringNow wrote:

    That begs a logical question, though…

    How can studies effectively compare identical resumes and cover letters submitted for the same position? Or to different jobs?

    If two EXACT SAME RESUMES and the EXACT SAME COVER LETTERS came across my desk today, I’d knock them both out because it would be so obviously be creepy and strange that I’d automatically know something was up. They go to the bottom of the resume pile.

    BUT (more likely), it’s very possible the first one I received would go towards the top of the file if they fit the job profile, and the second one (that I would receive much later) would get tossed to the bottom because I’d remember the first one, know something was weird, but not have the time or resources to go hunt for the first one and knock that out of the running either.

    Seriously, it’s incredibly difficult to hunt and find resumes once you’ve put them in the “consider” or “not consider” stack. I attempted it twice today and gave up.

    On the other hand, if a researcher submits the EXACT SAME RESUME and the EXACT SAME COVER LETTER to two different jobs, then (as I’ve explained above) that’s not an effective test. Neither of them fit the bill, so they both MIGHT be rejected.

    However, small details in either resume COULD save one of them from the “not consider stack.” What happens if those identical test resumes go out to two different companies, and a HR person at Company #1 sees something personal they LIKE and the person at Company #2 doesn’t? How is that a fair test?

    I called some stranger out of the blue today whose resume didn’t fit the job at all, because he grew up in my tiny village. It was just one of those little details that caught my eye, so I took a second to call, and now he’s on my “consider stack” because his other qualifications made up for what wan’t on the resume.

    So with so many variables in how resumes are handled, I don’t understand how identical resume submission tests like that can scientifically indicate bias.

    I’m sure there IS bias, I’m just not sure I get how those particular tests actually measure it.

  14. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @hiring now –

    I called some stranger out of the blue today whose resume didn’t fit the job at all, because he grew up in my tiny village. It was just one of those little details that caught my eye, so I took a second to call, and now he’s on my “consider stack” because his other qualifications made up for what wan’t on the resume.

    You gave a guy a hook up for having a similarity to you, but can’t see how that can same dynamic can be applied to racist ends? Interesting.

    Also, don’t forget that the game doesn’t end with you, HR sifter. I used to be a recruitment assistant, and culled piles and piles of resumes. I was in charge of prepping them and then sending them to people. Every recruiter had their biases.

    One recruiter had one for religion, so any one who used biblical quotes in their sign off instantly got the ax since he assumed they would be weirdos.

    Other people were disqualified for more random reasons. But there was at least two recruiters who would get hung up on a name like Jabar or Ronique. You see them make the skeptical face, and then slide the resume to the side. I started giving hires with names that had race/class associations to the recruiters who didn’t have biased reactions.

    And then, after that, there are the clients. I worked in another place where a resume had come in from a strong candidate who had stellar scores and a heavy background. However, the person actually making the decision made all kinds of comments on her resume, basically saying that it was impossible for a 27 year old woman to have accomplished all the things she said she did. (He disregarded the HR person’s checks, like calling schools and references) He didn’t even call her for a phone interview. Who made it to the offices for interviews? Three white guys.

    He wasn’t the only one that did stuff like that – there was another running joke at the same company that the head of marketing would only hire people that went to her alma matter. There is *lots* of bias in the hiring process at various levels in the process. To deny that is pretty foolish.

  15. Moni wrote:

    I remember a school principal who interviewed me over the phone for a job saying that she almost didn’t call me because of the African first name that I was using at the time. She said she thought that I wouldn’t know how to speak English. Mind you my last name is Welsh. She hired me, but it should of been a sign cause we butted heads like crazy (that is an understatement, trust me). I have always said that anyone who would not hire me because of my name, my political or religious affiliation (this has happened to me) or because of the way I wear my hair (afro textured natural) does not deserve to have me as an employee anyway. It is sad that people feel the need to cover their racial or ethnic identity to get a job. It seems a little like selling your soul…

  16. ABF wrote:

    I have a very African name and I noticed when I used my middle “Christian” name as my first the amount of callbacks exponentially increase. It is indeed very frustrating.

  17. Renn wrote:

    I used to work screening resumes for IT. I don’t know about in other fields, but I can honestly say I never even LOOKED at the names. Who had time for that?? I spent about 15 seconds per resume – if you had the right skill set, graduated from a good school, and had a decent progression in your work history with at least one good company in there, you moved on to my “keep pile”.