Quote:
|
Hidden biases, though, are verifiable--like the multiple studies showing that identical resumes with a traditionally white or black name at the top get vastly different rates of interview requests.
|
Verifiable, but don't have a big effect on our world.
On the basis of these studies, some have tried "blind recruitment". They remove anything gender or ethnic-identifying from the resume before it goes to the head hunters.
The Australian public service had a problem in hiring senior women. So they started a trial of blind recruitment.
Quote:
The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 percent less likely to get a job interview.
Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 percent more likely to get a foot in the door.
|
Of course, they shitcanned the trial. And this is just one single instance. But the whole idea of just putting a name up there and having it prove anything is pretty meaningless. The world doesn't consist of identical resumes at ALL, and the name is the least interesting thing on a resume. To prove it, I would like to suggest we try a test of traditional black names versus traditional white names, to test our racism:
Who will be your accountant:
Booker
or
Cleetus?
Who will watch over your cash drawer:
Angela
or
Tangerine?
Who will help watch over your aging parent during the day:
Shaniqua, age 41, Registered Nurse
or
Carol, age 21, retail worker?