A study has once again provided stark evidence of the harsh hiring penalties faced by job applicants with distinctively Black names. Researchers at the University of California – Berkeley and the University of Chicago responded to over 83,000 job postings at 97 Fortune 500 companies using fictitious applicants with names coded as White, Black, male or female.
The disturbing findings show applicants with White-sounding names received about 9% more callbacks than those with Black names overall. At the worst-offending companies, the racial gap in callbacks was a shocking 24% favoring presumed White applicants.
“When assessing gender differences, the researchers did not find prominent differences in callback rates between male and female applicants overall — racial differences were more pronounced. Results did vary by industry and firm, with the automobile industry having more pronounced racial differences in callback rates than other industries. The research also revealed that the smallest estimated racial bias was within food stores.
“Putting the names out there is to move away from companies’ performative allyship around diversity and inclusion,” study co-author Pat Kline of UC Berkeley told NPR.
The findings build on a 2003 study that found a staggering 50% gap in callback rates favoring White names over Black names when sending matching resumes to employers. In the study, researchers analyzed the callback rates for identical resumes with either Black or White names in Boston and Chicago. The results of their study provided evidence of pervasive racial discrimination against Black-sounding names during the hiring process.
“I’ve seen it throughout organizations up into the C-suite,” career coach Dorianne St. Fleur told NPR. “Many of my clients with the right credentials still aren’t getting hired.”
The new research reveals Black males faced the lowest callback rates of any group, followed by Black females. Industries like auto dealers, retailers and manufacturers exhibited among the highest rates of bias against Black applicants.
On a positive note, some major companies like Charter/Spectrum and Kroger showed little racial skew in hiring. Factors associated with lower bias included being a federal contractor and having centralized, standardized HR processes.
“Even if individuals have unconscious biases, it’s not automatic those translate to organizational bias with the right processes,” said Kline.
Name bias isn’t just a United States phenomenon. According to Forbes, a 2007 Swedish study found that job applicants with Swedish-sounding names received more callbacks than job applications with Arabic or African-sounding names across different occupations.
St. Fleur advises strategies like anonymizing resumes initially, multi-reviewer panels, and interviewer anti-bias training to promote equitable hiring. “Companies need to collect data and standardize the process,” she said. “The fact some firms did so well shows it’s possible.”
The findings validate longstanding concerns in the Black community about discriminatory employment barriers. Yet the positive examples offer a path forward.
The study comes amid backlash against diversity initiatives, which critics falsely claim create racial preferences rather than dismantle systemic disadvantages that research clearly demonstrates.
With commitment from employers and resilience from job seekers, St. Fleur said, “it’s very possible to build an equitable process.”