Racism and Distinctively Black Names

Bill Cosby finds support for his crusade against the antisocial elements of black culture. Of note is this comment:

Cosby contended that some of the controversy after his appearance was caused by those who misinterpreted his comments about lower-income blacks. He said history has proved that lower economic groups tend to rise up and "beat down those things that might be self-inflicted," but he suggested that isn't happening in many places today.

"The mistake that was made by me was to say, 'I'm afraid the lower-economic people are not holding up their end,' " Cosby said. "And, of course, not to clear up the thing [I said] about how you name your children, when in fact what I meant was that if you name your kid Mohammed, there's something behind that. And you raise your child according to the definitions of that name."

Remember when this paper from last year stirred a lot of controversy. The authors concluded:

This paper suggests that discrimination is an important factor in why African Americans do poorly in the labor market. Job applicants with African American names get far fewer callbacks for each resume they send out. (MS: The rate was one per fifteen for resumes containing distinctively black names as compared to one per ten for white names.) Equally importantly, applicants with African American names find it hard to fight discrimination in callbacks by improving their observable skills or credentials.

Their conclusion, of course, means that blacks with culturally identifiable names like Lakisha, Jamal, or Mohammed, are discriminated against in the labor market due to the racist attitudes of firms and their HR personnel. And since they never receive consideration for employment given this covert racism, they are unable to overcome this employment obstacle because they never get the chance to prove themselves.

This paper challenges the direction of causation, claiming that rather than distinctively black names restricting employment opportunities, which consequently causes an individual to live a life in poverty, African Americans with limited employment skills are more likely to choose culturally identifiable monikers when naming their children.

Lastly, Sniderman et. al. (subscription to J-Stor required) challenge certain allegations about racism, especially the perception that conservatives are inherently more racist than liberals. The authors conclude that racism is largely overstated, and where it does persist is predominantly among lower income whites, which would seem to exclude most HR personnel. They also note that rather than hatred against blacks as a motivating factor for whites resisting efforts to provide assistance to blacks, whites tend to be highly supportive of blacks (and whites) who maintain traditional (i.e., conservative) values (i.e., marriage, family, work, etc.) but are more likely to reject those who don't. It is a cultural or value distinction, not a racial distinction.

My take: Job market signaling is important for obtaining an interview, which are costly for firms to conduct. An applicant pool may extend into the hundreds, and HR personnel must filter through every one in order to narrow it downl to, say, five, ten, or even twenty credible candidates. Unable to pour over each and every resume in search of the ideal candidate, they invariably look for signals to disqualify candidates. Rather than attribute it to racism, distinctively black names may be perceived as a signal of an applicant's negative attitude toward traditional cultural values (what Cosby alleges in the quote above), leading an HR officer to question the applicant's willingness/desire/tendency to cooperate. This is no different than, say, applicants with names like Bubba, Jim-Bob, or Skeeter, being perceived as applicants with cognitive limitations, or individuals who show up for interviews wearing inappropriate clothing being perceived as lacking respect and therefore unlikely to take directions and work well alongside others.