When references are made to institutionalized racism, this is what is meant.

It's absolute bullshit that whites or males are being blocked out of contracts, given that only 10 - 30% of contracts must go to minorities. That leaves 70% to go to white people. Gasp!!! And white people are 70% of the populatioon.

Subcontracts. If you have to subcontract out 10% to 30% to MBE/WBE firms, that means you pretty much have to sub out to all MBE/WBE firms,
No, DEI initiatives are designed to give worthless people overpaid jobs. The people running the programs.
How do you know what the Human Resources personnel knew or didn't know? These people are trained to sniff out and determine which ones are fake and which ones aren't. Maybe if the HR people who made the rejections were identified and given a chance to explain themselves, they might have a different story than the researchers who sent in the Fake Resumes to prove their pre-determined thesis that HR people are racists.
Here's the difference that even if they replaced Tyrone and Billy Bob with ONE and TWO and took written answers to interviews.
ONE--"I would probably answer the question with another question, let me ask you if you are clear."
TWO--"I would prolly answer the question with another question, let me axe you if you feel me."
Which one is the diversity candidate?
There is nothing vague about the reasons.

A Discrimination Report Card

It's not a stretch to conclude this report would have revealed much, much more discrimination 30 years ago. And much more still 30 years before that. And so on.

Seems to me that coming up with predictable results is how these folks make their living. Their business would go away if they found nothing, no different than any race hustlers. And admit it 9.5% is next to nothing.

So here's the thing: Let's say I have a car dealership in a posh suburb, 95% "white" and Asian. I have seen exactly two Black people walk into my showroom in the past year. While I personally couldn't care less whom I buy from, I fear that my clients would be reluctant to buy from, or even be comfortable with "Jamal."

Should I stand on principle and hire someone who will lose me sales, or find sales people with whom I know all my customers will be comfortable?

The picture you chose to show is evidence of your racism. Jamal woud probably look like this. And I doubt if people would uncomfortable with him.

They said they sent 80,000 applications to 100 companies?
Can anyone do math anymore??
We are to believe they sent 800 applications to 100 companies?? 800 to each company??
How many of those applications were tossed out? Ya think maybe someone wondered why they were getting so many applicants?
They said it was around 100 of the nations LARGEST COMPANIES.... but then said "a fifth of the "discriminations" were from "car dealers and retailers"
What? -- car dealerships are in the top 100 large companies???

Can anyone critically read anymore?
A lot of smelly stuff in this "study"

What Researchers Discovered When They Sent 80,000 Fake Résumés to U.S. Jobs

A group of economists recently performed an experiment on around 100 of the largest companies in the country, applying for jobs using made-up résumés with equivalent qualifications but different personal characteristics. They changed applicants’ names to suggest that they were white or Black, and male or female — Latisha or Amy, Lamar or Adam.

On Monday, they released the names of the companies. On average, they found, employers contacted the presumed white applicants 9.5 percent more often than the presumed Black applicants.

Yet this practice varied significantly by firm and industry. One-fifth of the companies — many of them retailers or car dealers — were responsible for nearly half of the gap in callbacks to white and Black applicants.

Two companies favored white applicants over Black applicants significantly more than others. They were AutoNation, a used car retailer, which contacted presumed white applicants 43 percent more often, and Genuine Parts Company, which sells auto parts including under the NAPA brand, and called presumed white candidates 33 percent more often.

It doesn't mean overt, extreme racism is rampant in America. It's existence is much more subtle and insidious than that. Some people may exhibit signs of racism subconsciously. Or not consider it to be racism at all.

What is much more difficult to measure than the job discrimination this study reveals is the affect on blacks in America. To what extent has it caused the economic and educational disparities that exist given what some call systemic racism has been going on for centuries.

Do they have a breakdown of the methodology in how they submitted the applications? Surely they didn’t submit 80,000 applications to each company they were using for the experiment. I assume they divided those applications up amongst the companies on their list they were using.

So, there needs to be more information on how they conducted their experiment, like, did they have an equal amount of application with black sounding names as there were white sounding names? Did they submit equal numbers of applications of each type to each company? What were the names they used that they claim sounded black and what were the names they used that sounded white? You know, not everyone may agree that some names are indicative of a particular ethnicity. Were the skills and qualifications for each of the applicants all the same? Or different?

What about the companies themselves? How many of those companies had the people doing the interviews who were black or other minority as opposed to white? Did anyone go to these companies for a comment? To see what the company was thinking?

It’s entirely possible that it was other things on the application other than the name that was the deciding factor. They cited some companies contacted presumed white applicants 43% more often. How many applications were sent to those companies? If it was a small number, that 43% might be just a few people. Only 2 of the companies apparently are in that group, the other ones appear to be in the other group of 9.5%.

They say they used 100 companies as their sample size, so does that mean they sent 800 applications to each company? Or were there different numbers to different companies in different cities? They showed 2 companies with a 43/33% gap, but said others were around 9.5%. They listed 16 companies, so were those bottom 14 companies those that had the 9.5%? What about the other 84 companies? Were they also in the 9.5% or were they lower?

What is the racial breakdown of these companies? Do they have an almost entirely white work force, suggesting a pattern of discriminatory practices? Or do they have a fairly diverse mix of employees that would suggest they hire all kinds of people?

I mean, it’s entirely possible these stores did a horrible injustice, but, you have a study that doesn’t give any methodology on how they conducted this experiment, and then they go and name and shame some of those companies on the internet (defamation lawsuit here??)

Basically you have a study that was conducted the doesn’t give any information on how they conducted their study, doesn’t give details on their findings, doesn’t have any information about them contacting the company to get any kind of explanation, or a chance to refute the claims, or explain their own methodology in their hiring practices.

It appears they are trying to get the reader to believe the reason for the gap was based on the name only, when there may be other explanations…that they never bothered to ask for?
Last edited:
I see you have a chosen a popular form of denial among conservatives. If you don't like the findings of a study, question its legitimacy. Kinda like what happened when Trump and his minions didn't like the outcome of the 2020 election.
Yes, you question the legitimacy…because there are so many unanswered questions. Who were this group of “economists”? Were they also part of an activist group who might just skew things a bit to arrive at a desired result? I’m not saying they DID that, but there are so many things they DIDNT say that needs more context.
So why would it be a mistake?
Are you saying not getting the job is best for them?

Uncle Daddy will cancel their student debt

and they can live with their single mom till the first welfare check arrives?
Are you saying not getting the job is best for them?

Uncle Daddy will cancel their student debt

and they can live with their single mom till the first welfare check arrives?
Again, why would it be a mistake?
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2

Forum List