It’s the Stone Racists We Need to Worry About

Will they get as many callbacks as the white folks behind them?Dirk Shadd/Tampa Bay Times via ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

A popular way of testing for racist attitudes in employment is to send multiple applications to a single job posting. The applications are generally identical except for one thing: the names of the applicants. One has a sterotypically white name (Madison Nash) and the other has a stereotypically black name (LaShonda Greene). Then you check to see how many of the white names get callbacks for interviews compared to the black names. Generally speaking, the white names get called back at a rate 2-4 percentage points higher than the black names.

Today, Brad DeLong calls my attention to a clever new study that tries to tease out exactly what causes this difference.

The types specification finds that only about 17% of jobs discriminate against blacks….However, the degree of discrimination among such jobs is estimated to be very severe — the odds of receiving a call back are roughly [] 53 times higher for white applications than blacks.

In other words, the vast majority of hiring managers aren’t using a racial filter. Only a small group, about one-sixth of the total, discriminates against blacks, but that sixth is massively racist: they all but flatly refuse to even interview someone who seems like they might be black.

Brad says he’s surprised by this, but I’m not. My mental model of racism in recent decades is that, in fact, most people aren’t especially racist—or at least they genuinely try not to be. However, there’s a segment of the population—yes, these are Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables”—who are still openly and defiantly racist in all things. All by themselves, their racism is so overwhelming that it’s enough to make a noticeable difference in the overall rate.

Now, one thing to note here is that this method of sussing out racism sets a very low bar. To pass, all you need to do is be willing to interview someone with a stereotypically black name. You don’t have to hire them, just set up an interview. In other words, this experiment doesn’t really suggest that 83 percent of hiring managers aren’t racist in any way, just that they aren’t huge, raging assholes.

That said, I’m prone to believe that this result is a general one. The evidence I’ve seen suggests that most Americans are, at most, very mildly racist these days. However, there’s still a sixth of the country that basically wishes Jim Crow could make a comeback. This in turn means that perhaps one-sixth of the jobs in America are all but completely denied to blacks.

There’s value in knowing this, because it provides some idea of what needs to be addressed most urgently: identifying the stone racists, not providing endless diversity lessons for everyone else. This study is well worth a follow-up to see if its results hold up.

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate