Unless robots select the applicants throughout the entire processes we know race is always a factor. We already have the studies that prove if you have a traditionally Black sounding name you wont even get a call back for a job.
I've been involved in hiring and that was not the way we did things.
In fact, that process was so documented and CYA that I find it hard to see how any manager would dare not call back on a qualified resume for fear of putting himself at risk.
AND everyone knew that upper management would throw you to the wolves so fast that the wolves would be surprised.
Pretty sure your anecdotal instance with you doing the hiring was rife with corruption.
Of course you are sure.
You need for those who disagree with you to be corrupt or racist or something that gives you an excuse to marginalize them, if only in your own head.
I managed a diverse workforce for years. Any manager who would ignore good resumes for no reason would be in big trouble.
Sure you manged a diverse workforce.
Unfortunately we know you are lying because there are studies that have been done that proves my point.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/weekinreview/06Luo.html
Interesting.
I am aware of the studies you are vaguely referring to.
Oddly enough you failed to link to any of them, instead to a vague unsupported article, but regardless..
You seem to misunderstand the way such studies work.
Even if we accept their findings that black sounding names get fewer callbacks, that in no way disproves my singular personal experience in one large organization.
THe organization could have an exceptional HR department, or perhaps unknown to me, there was a major lawsuit that burned them in the recent past that made them careful, or any number of possible explanations.
I don't believe that do be the case.