Study shows how deeply black men face discrimination in hiring Oct. 8, 2003 Tannette Johnson-Elie Yet another study finds that racial discrimination is alive and well in the hiring process, and it's keeping black men in metro Milwaukee on the unemployment rolls. The study offers this fictional scenario: A young, white, male high school graduate with a felony conviction applies in person for entry level jobs as a driver, a dishwasher, a laborer, warehouse worker and production worker that are advertised in the newspaper and admits to employers that he served 18 months in prison for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. A young black man with similar education, work history and style of presentation, but with no criminal record, applies for the same jobs. Who do you think is more likely to be called back? If you picked the white man with the felony conviction, you guessed right. This study offers evidence that discrimination remains a major factor in the economic lives of black men, and highlights the fear and misunderstanding of black males that permeate the local job market. Devah Pager, a sociologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., sent equally matched pairs of testers - two black and two white - to apply for low-skilled jobs at 350 places of employment in the Milwaukee area and found that white ex-offenders were more likely to be called back for an interview than black applicants who had no criminal record. Students test employers In this detailed study, bright, articulate, college students posed as job applicants. Even though the results were strikingly close, black men without criminal records were called back only 14% of the time, while whites with criminal records were called back 17% of the time. The study, titled "The Mark of a Criminal Record," was conducted in Milwaukee between June and December 2001, and the results were released last month. "It shows there's a great deal of work that has to be done in the education of employers and working on attitudes," says Julia Taylor, president of the Greater Milwaukee Committee. "This type of racial disparity in employment practices really impacts us as a region. It impacts our work force, and it really impacts how the inner-city moves forward." Pager chose Milwaukee for her experiment because it is representative of most large metropolitan areas in its size, racial demographics and industrial base, she says. The study's findings would surprise few African-Americans in this city, who know from experience that this kind of discrimination exists in the job market. Research shows that white Americans, however, have been led to think that direct, racial discrimination of this nature has become less of a problem in our society. It was even surprising to Pager, a young white woman. "I expected that there would be an effect of race. I thought the effect of a criminal record would swamp other effects," Pager says. "That assumption was clearly wrong. It really suggests that stereotypes and assumptions about black males are very much a factor in hiring decisions." Facing tougher odds The study demonstrates the increased odds black male ex-offenders face in finding employment and successfully reintegrating into the economic mainstream, says Lenard Wells, chairman of the Milwaukee Parole Commission and a former Milwaukee police officer. "It's as if there's a concerted effort to keep black men from getting employment, to keep them oppressed," says Wells, former president of the League of Martin, an organization of black Milwaukee police officers. "We say we want to reintegrate individuals into the community. We say that we want to do something about unemployment in the black community, yet we want to pretend that it's a criminal record that prevents blacks from getting jobs. It's blatant, undisputed, racism," he says. Combine the effects of race and a criminal record, and the problem becomes worse. For instance, only 5% of black men with criminal records received callbacks from employers, the study found. White men without criminal records fared the best in the Milwaukee-area job market, with 34% receiving callbacks from employers. Keep in mind that it's illegal to discriminate against applicants with criminal records unless the circumstances of the crime correspond closely to the requirements of the job, says Phoebe Weaver Williams, an associate professor of law at Marquette University who specializes in employment discrimination. "What's frustrating is that, after so many years of having laws in place, the laws haven't corrected the problem," Weaver Williams says. Clearly, the study's findings demonstrate that a criminal record closes doors on employment. Still, employers are averse to taking risks on black applicants, whom they perceive to have criminal tendencies, the study says. For example, black testers were more likely to be asked by employers whether they had any convictions, yet none of the white testers were asked about their criminal histories up front. Image problems A couple of factors that work against young black men is their portrayal in the media as gangsters, thugs and rappers on the fringes of society, and the fact that more black men are going to prison than college, according to a report by the U.S. Justice Department. The sad reality is that the majority of those inmates will be released back into communities where they have little opportunity to obtain legitimate work. Research shows that one of the factors for recidivism is employment. Black felons face a hostile job market in Milwaukee, says Wendell Hruska, associate director of Project Return, a Milwaukee agency that helps felons and people convicted of misdemeanors find employment. "Discrimination is very much a problem. That's what we've been hearing from our clients," Hruska says. "A lot of people get discouraged. Unfortunately, many of them give up. You really can't blame people when you've been out there for months putting in applications and you hear nothing back." This research helps us measure the degree of discrimination that exists in the hiring process. But the question remains: How do we attack a problem that so affects the economic lives of black men in Milwaukee, where many employers still make hiring decisions colored by fear and misunderstanding?
I thought Affirmative action was supposed to offset or reduce this? Is there anything that government could do other than laws or is there a private sector/free market solution to this?
i think you have to give it time and when our generation gets older i think a lot of this will go away...
yeah it is not up to the gov't to solve the problem, its a social problem. and an education problem, the gov't really can't do anything apart from prevent actual racial discriminations such as racial attacks etc peacex
Well I guess one question is how influenced has the younger generation been by the older? Plus,these attitudes as far as race can be shaped by media images of certain groups,in this case Black males. If the media(news,entertainment etc) disporportionatly portrays Black males in a negative light over a more balanced one,then this could continue to influence perceptions of them and can influence the thinking of those in charge of hiring.
yeah it is not up to the gov't to solve the problem, its a social problem. and an education problem, the gov't really can't do anything apart from prevent actual racial discriminations such as racial attacks etc And who does the educating? Isn’t being racially discriminatory a form of racial attack? Should a government have nothing to do with the society it governs?
in my personal opinion, and remember this is from a UK situation, we do not have the racial tensions as strong as in the US for what ever reason. educations should be from parents and from school who are not dictated from the gov't. education is seperate from state i believe. i believe in independant schools. yes racial discrimination is a form of racial attack, but the gov't cannot force situations to hire so many people of certain colour because that in turn is racist. the govenment is put there for what the citizens put it there for. not to run every detail of a society. that would be a totalitarian regime. does the gov't have the right to tell someone they can only hire people with blue eyes, no they do not, so they have no right to do the same on any other natural feature, it is down to society and the media to get rid of racial problem. peacex
As far as jobs,has that been clearly proven for the majority of AAction hirings? It would seem to me that the majority of AAction hirings would be qualified for the simple reason that no business is going to hire unqualified people to do a job. It'll hurt their business. Then work-place affrimative action will need to stay in place until something better comes along to solve this problem?
in my personal opinion, and remember this is from a UK situation, we do not have the racial tensions as strong as in the US for what ever reason. Maybe you should think about why that should be? educations should be from parents and from school who are not dictated from the gov't. education is seperate from state i believe. i believe in independant schools. Well parents are likely to impart their own ill-informed prejudices. How to these ‘independent’ schools pay for themselves? Who sets the curriculum in the ‘independent’ schools? yes racial discrimination is a form of racial attack, but the gov't cannot force situations to hire so many people of certain colour because that in turn is racist. If you read the original post it was that white people with worse CV’s were getting jobs, if that was monitored or could be challenged then it might be a start, and the best people to do that would be the government. ** the govenment is put there for what the citizens put it there for. So it depends on what the citizens want? This again goes back to a rational and balanced education, if people are taught to be racist then they are going to bring in or accept racist policies. not to run every detail of a society. that would be a totalitarian regime. This comes down to political viewpoint and outlook. What thinks do you view as ‘every detail’? does the gov't have the right to tell someone they can only hire people with blue eyes, no they do not, so they have no right to do the same on any other natural feature, But you have already said that “the govenment is put there for what the citizens put it there for” and if the people put the government there to “hire people with blue eyes” are you saying that they can’t? it is down to society and the media to get rid of racial problem. How?
Maybe you should think about why that should be? why don't you tell me why we do not have the racial tensions as extreme as the US. i believe that, as i was brought up for the past 18 years in Birmingham, which is highly multicultural, my upbringing and education. i couldn't possible comment on the US as it is a very large country and i havn't been to school there or do not have american parents. Well parents are likely to impart their own ill-informed prejudices. How to these ‘independent’ schools pay for themselves? Who sets the curriculum in the ‘independent’ schools? so what are you suggesting, let the government bring up all the children, as in a nanny state? 'independent schools' as those which are suggested by the Commons at present, are funded by the government still, but they have greater freedoms. the curriculum is set by the school and the community, but still may have the main subjects of course (havn't read the whole bill) but it gives the voice back to the parent, it is alos been suggested that we have locally-elected education authorities who will have more power. If you read the original post it was that white people with worse CV’s were getting jobs, if that was monitored or could be challenged then it might be a start, and the best people to do that would be the government. any judgement on skin colour is a racist attack. it should be monitored, but not to the point where there is a quota system as in some places at present, i believe this a patronizing act and racist in itself, i said nothing about taking away monitoring possible racist organizations. So it depends on what the citizens want? This again goes back to a rational and balanced education, if people are taught to be racist then they are going to bring in or accept racist policies. and if the citizens elect a racist gov't who then has the power over all racial elements then this would not work. the gov't is not elected to change civil society, these things are seperated, because that is what democracy is balanced on, a seperation between state and civil society, only when this is gained will democarcy really work. This comes down to political viewpoint and outlook. What thinks do you view as ‘every detail’ it does come down to political viewpoint, i view details as all things the gov't has no right to change or influence, such as freedoms of expression, speech, movement, civil society etc. as i mentioned above, for democracy to work properly there must be a seperation between civil society and state, i forget the major thinker who came up with this theory. i believe that civil society is the most important thing in the nation, but can only be changed from within, if from the outside, it would be a very totalitarian thing to do. the government does not control our minds, this is a liberal democracy. But you have already said that “the govenment is put there for what the citizens put it there for” and if the people put the government there to “hire people with blue eyes” are you saying that they can’t? no because of our uncodified constiution and human rights acts etc. a gov't cannot overstep the mark in some areas no matter of consensus. a gov't cannot break the human rights act or english law, just because the majority believe so, that is why we have them to protect the minorities. How? it is down to us individuals to spread the message, and anti-racism groups to do the same. the media have to realize the affect they have over the public. we must all come together for the greater good. if we do not allow racism as individual we can drive it out. also education has a part to play i can see where you are coming from in these posts, but governmental control is not the way forward, local politics and civil society is where i personally believe things need to be changed peacex
Ok I think in spirit we are close, but I would like to point out a few things from my perspective. To me it is a matter of balance between local, national and international views and laws. For example many local authorities in the US supported racial segregation and that injustice only came to an end through the offices of the national (federal) authorities (backed up by civil rights groups). But I believe national authorities should abide by international laws such as European and UN human rights acts. Which both the UK and US governments have sidelined or opted out of. I agree with peoples freedoms of expression, speech and movement as you do but I don’t have your faith in “our uncodified constiution and human rights acts” because the government has limited these things by bringing in new laws. For example a woman has recently been arrested for reciting the names of British dead in Iraq as a protest against the war. She was found guilty under a section of the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which makes it illegal for anyone to protest within one kilometre of Parliament. Which in effect means that if you say anything against the government within that area you could be arrested and charged with an offence. ** I’m not sure what you mean by the separation “between civil society and state”? To me a state or nations are made up of different elements that are part of the whole and should be able to influence each other. ** My problem with schools that are allowed to set their own curriculum is that they can then teach their own viewpoint. The thing is that education is a powerful tool to me children should be taught not only ‘facts’ but how to question the facts, but others (as is shown by history) are more likely to prefer the unquestioning obedience to free thought. The other thing I believe education should teach is that human beings are human beings, in other words it should stress our commonality not our differences. My fear about independent schools is that they could use admission policy to perpetuate divisions in a society such as through religion or racial segregation. **
