Closing the Racial Gap

Earlier this semester, we talked about a study that distributed identical resumes to numerous jobs with only one difference between them - One had the name Todd Allen, and one Tyrone Allen. And the disappointing outcome is the one you have begrudgingly learned to expect - this one difference had an impact on the number of callbacks and interviews scheduled.

I'm not sure when that study was conducted, but not a lot has changed. The NY Times printed an article yesterday that said the same thing - there is a racial divide in job hunting, and not even a college degree can level the playing field.

What does this say about the world we live in? I have a lot of responses to an article like this. First of all, if someone gets your resume, and disregards it because your name is "too black," would a black person feel comfortable working there in the first place? That isn't a good answer or argument, because accepting this discrimination tacitly approves of this behavior. The article says that many black men are wiping any racial evidence from their resumes to be sure that any rejections aren't because of race. I don't know what this is like, as someone who benefits from white privilege - if I get turned down from a job, race isn't one of the factors I fear the reasoning was. But I do have a strange connection to this discrimination.

I'm a feminist - a loud, proud feminist. When we made our resumes last semester in graphics, I wasn't sure how to incorporate this into my resume - or if I even should. If anyone balked at my feminism, screw them - I wouldn't want to work for them anyway. But are there some things that shouldn't be mentioned in a professional resume? Aside from the fact there was no real place to put it, no rules about how to show it. I want my feminism to speak through my resume - it's an undeniable part of my identity. I guess that's vaguely comparable to this race argument. On the whole, I shouldn't have to think about being discriminated for my feminism, just as people of color shouldn't have to face discrimination for their race. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

One of the black men quoted said “If they’re going to X me, I’d like to at least get in the door first.” And there's something to be said for that. Nobody wants to be preemptively judged. But whitewashing your resume seems almost equally problematic to me, and this Times article doesn't bring that up. No white people have to alter their resumes in the same way, taking out race to seem more appealing (but I suppose gay people make theirs straighter at times, and disabled people make sure not to allude to their disability, for these same reasons).

This article kinda stresses me out - I wish it addressed larger issues about discrimination and what whitewashing actually says about racism in America. But at least its framed in a way that makes it clear that this isn't right, and that this shouldn't happen. Even though it keeps saying none of this racism is overt - what does that mean? Isn't that just excusing it?

Anyway, I'm headed to DC tomorrow to lobby against the Stupak amendment - so expect a post about that!