gourimoko
Fighting the good fight!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 39,845
- Reaction score
- 53,645
- Points
- 148
I’m just trying to get to the bottom of you’re saying.
You say that there is a tangible social construct in which minorities are affected in the job interviewing process.
I’m just not sure what you’re referring to here.
I'm saying that non-Whites are less likely to be hired than Whites in both a blind-selection process as well as in personal, face-to-face candidate interviews. This works across groups, but, we're just talking about race and gender for the moment.
The reason behind this is specifically due to implicit and unconscious biases demonstrated by all people; not just Whites. In fact, the race of the interviewer isn't really all that relevant, again, since everyone has these biases.
We suspect it's largely implicit and not explicit bias primarily because such explicit bias simply isn't commonplace enough to account for such a large discrepancy; explicit bias is conscious action and one could reasonably expect conformity to group boundaries, and yet we don't observe this to be the case (i.e., demonstrable in-group discrimination); and lastly, in the aforementioned study conducted in Scandinavia regarding gender discrimination, simply being aware of the implicit biases and how they affect hiring practices and having some modicum of outreach almost completely mitigated it's effects with relation to gender (this wouldn't be the case if it were explicit sexism).
Last edited: