Black woman pretends to be white, job offers skyrocket

[ashling]

&feature=player_embedded

[Spitfire of ATJ]

1. Maybe I should pretend to be a white male and see what happens.

[Honeycombe8]

6. Well, I read a study long ago that showed that students with male names got higher grades

than the same work turned in with female names. The gender of the teacher made no difference.

That would be male names of any race. They got higher grades than female names, where race wasn't known. So a male Af. American would get a higher grade than a white female, presumably.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

9. That explains this...

[Honeycombe8]

10. LOL. nt

[noiretextatique]

2. not at all surprised

welcome to post-racial america, where we are "blind" to color (except white)

[Honeycombe8]

7. But...they didn't know her race for the 1st resume, did they?

So they didn't not respond because of her race. They couldn't have. They didn't know it.

It's possible they didn't respond because they had a filter to reject anyone who had not filled out all the forms.

The only way to truly compare the two is:
Post resume, then fill out diversity questionnaire, putting Af. American;
Post resume again, then fill out diversity questionnaire, putting White.

She didn't do that. I wonder why?

[noiretextatique]

14. they responded to WHITE

or do you think it was a coincidence that she suddenly started getting calls after she changed her profile?

[Honeycombe8]

15. She didn't "change" her profile. She filled out a new form for the first time.

The only way to know if they chose white over black is if she had filled out the same forms, noting black on one and white on the other. Otherwise, there is no way to know.

She could have been Asian, Native American, hispanic, Indian, or white...in the first instance. There was no way for them to know. All they knew was...she didn't fill out the diversity form.

So it's not proof that they chose white over black. It's really a simple scientific comparison.

[ashling]

22. Nobody said that her method was intended to be a "scientific" comparison

[MrScorpio]

3. America is a racist country

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

[valerief]

4. As long as we're divided, the ruling class can continue to conquer. nt

[Honeycombe8]

8. Listen to the "facts" again. No one rejected her because of her real race.

They didn't know her race. She never filled out the diversity form with her real race. That's the only way to compare the two situations.

[MrScorpio]

11. What the employers did was prefer a definite WHITE applicant over other applicants of unknown race

Even with identical qualifications, otherwise.

And she already filled applications, with identical qualifications under her actual race and name, with nothing approaching the response to a DEFINITE white applicant.

That alone indicates that they want white people to fill these positions more than any other race, known or unknown.

If that doesn't sound like an indication of racist white privilege and preference, I don't know does.

[Honeycombe8]

16. No, she had not noted her race on her forms. That's the purpose of the diversity form. I am white.

I routinely don't fill out the race section of things. Sometimes I do, but sometimes I routinely don't. The only reason that info is gathered is for affirmative action purposes. Companies have to prove that they didn't discriminate by passing over minorities. I know this because I used to do affirmative action plans for companies. It's helpful to get the race of applicants, so that can be used in the aff. action analyses, the purpose of which is to prove they didn't discriminate.

[MrScorpio]

20. Look, I'm not sure what agenda that you've got going on here

But she did three types of resumes: One as herself, a black woman, a second, as a person without the racial identification and the last one, as a white woman.

The white persona was the one who got most of the contacts.

That's a straight forward indication that these employers that she contacted through Monster (or Monster itself) were more interested in hiring a white person over a person with an unknown racial identification and a woman who identifies as black.

Did you even bother to watch the video before chiming in? If not, I suggest that you should.

One last thing, my first post that you replied to was just a general statement that America is a racist country.

I'd just like to know for the record, was there something about that particular statement that impelled you reply to me in objection to the article itself?

[Honeycombe8]

5. That's not quite accurate.

Her original resume wasn't rejected because she was Af. American. Employers had no idea what race she was. She could've been white, Asian, Native American, Indian, Af. American.

The second resume - it wasn't JUST that she marked white. She filled out all the forms on the site that you are asked to. It's possible that THAT was the reason.

The only way to truly compare the two is IF she had filled out the diversity questionnaire and put Af. American, and then did a second one where she put White. She didn't do that.

[glowing]

12. She changed her name on the forms as well ... From Yolanda to Bianca white.

[limpyhobbler]

13. Originally she indicated she was African American.Then she tried "decline to identify"

With still no results, then she created a white-race profile and started getting results.

And yep this country is severely racist.

[Honeycombe8]

17. No, she never identified her race. The only way to compare two applicants...

accurately is to fill out the same forms identically, except for race. She didn't do that. I wonder why?

She originally disregarded the diversity form entirely. I'm sure employers passed her up because she failed to follow instructions...either fill out the form or check off "decline to identify."

Then she marked "decline to identify." She could have been any race. There was no way for an employer to know, if they even gave it any thought. Many employers would give preference to a prospective employee who fills out ALL the forms. For one thing, they need that information for affirmative action plans (I used to do aff. action plans). It is THE reason for the diversity questionnaire. They use this information to prove to the govt that they did NOT pass over minorities to favor whites. It doesn't help their stats to waste time on applicants for whom they don't have affirmative action information.

It's possible that some employers favored her because of the white race, but it's possible that some just passed her over because she didn't fill out all the forms and provide all the information they want. It's also possible that had she filled out the diversity form and checked off Af. American, that she would have gotten a lot of responses. No way to know, SINCE SHE DID NOT DO THAT.

[limpyhobbler]

18. That's not the way I see it. Take a look at this quote.

At times, I would mark off that I was a Black female, but then I thought, this might be hurting my chances of getting employed, so I started selecting the “decline to identify” option instead. That still had no effect on my getting a job. So I decided to try an experiment: I created a fake job applicant and called her Bianca White.

http://www.techyville.com/2012/11/news/unemployed-black-woman-pretends-to-be-white-job-offers-suddenly-skyrocket/

She says clearly that marking "Black" she got poor results, being "unidentified race" she got poor results, but being "White" she got much better results.

[MrScorpio]

19. I tried telling Honeycomb8 this before also. I'm not sure that this point is getting through…

Thanks for trying anyway.

[Taitertots]

21. Does Monster.com tell potential employers the race of applicants?

I was always under the impression that they were not telling potential employers the race of applicants. Isn't that what they mean when they say that it is for demographic purposes and can't hurt your chances of getting a job?