and consistently show the same results in that many employers (including minority employers) show preference

on racial lines at all stages of the hiring process.

Fortunately, such discrimination is already illegal; however, it is difficult to pinpoint violations because

the law requires that an offense be intentional and demonstrable. In a 2002 study conducted by two professors

from the University of Chicago and MIT that utilized racially indicative names (i.e. there was a "Brad" and a

"Tyrone") submitted with resumes of equal qualification. The study recorded how many of the applicants

received callbacks or interviews based on resumes where the only significant difference was in the name. In

findings consistent with this new Princeton study, it showed that applicants with "white-sounding" names were

50% more likely to receive a call for an interview than those with "black-sounding" names. What's more

interesting in the context of this new study involves the apparent lack of impact of the credentials of

applicants on the stigma of being an ex-convict. To bolster the comparison between blacks and white ex-

convicts offered by the Princeton article, the former study found that the positive impact of the(identical)

credentials of those with "white-sounding" names was far greater than that of those with "black-sounding

names" on the chances of getting an interview. Just an interesting comparison I thought was poignant to this

topic.

It seems, however, that studies like this do little to address the issue of racial discrimination in hiring

practices beyond shining a glimmer upon it every five years. Greater accountability of employers through

rigorous audits of this kind with actual penalties for violations would perhaps be prudent.