Print this post Print this post

Employers Hate Blacks, but They Love “Ebony”?

Tyrone1,678 words

About six years ago, I was still indoctrinated by leftist thought enough to start a small online group I called “ARSENAL” (it stood for something like “Anti-Racist Studies e-North American Library,” from what I can remember). I started the group for the purposes of sharing and discussing sociological studies on race; and among the individuals I invited there was a black lesbian sociology professor I encountered in a prison abolitionist group. The main results of this exercise were:

  1. I learned just how interested so-called “anti-racists” actually were in rigorously analyzing the studies they liked to promote; and
  2. as I analyzed them myself, the pretense that anti-racist arguments had the backing of empirical evidence very quickly started falling apart.

The first thread to go was a very well-known study by the title of “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment in Labor Market Discrimination.”[1] The significance of this study to anti-racist sociology overall really can’t be overstated. Searching the Web of Science database for “social science” > “sociology” > “race” reveals that the top 100 studies have a rough average of about 600 citations each. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?” has over 1500. It’s one of the well-known “anti-racist educator” Tim Wise’s favorite studies to reference, as well (and this is how I discovered it): even as recently as March of 2014, it was the first of just five citations he chose to incorporate into a major public speech.[2]

Quoting the National Bureau of Economic Research’s summary,

“In total, the authors responded to more than 1,300 employment ads in the sales, administrative support, clerical, and customer services job categories, sending out nearly 5,000 resumes. The ads covered a large spectrum of job quality, from cashier work at retail establishments and clerical work in a mailroom to office and sales management positions. The results indicate large racial differences in callback rates to a phone line with a voice mailbox attached and a message recorded by someone of the appropriate race and gender.” [3] The study ‘indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience.’”

An article at Salon reporting on the study said:

[We] have a national religion . . . it’s Denialism. . . . [R]acism and white privilege dominate American society. . . . This truth is everywhere. . . . You can see it in a 2004 MIT study showing that job–seekers with “white names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews” than job seekers with comparable résumés and African American-sounding names.[4]

When summaries state that the study “responded to more than 1,300 employment ads . . . sending out nearly 5,000 resumes,” this seems to imply that we’re dealing with very large numbers of difference in callback rates. So the first thing I did was crunch the numbers in order to see what the difference in number of callbacks between these different applicants actually was. The study explains on page 7 that it uses both male and female names for sales jobs, but uses female names “nearly exclusively” for administrative and clerical jobs in order to ensure higher overall callback rates. In 5000 resumes, 1124 were male and the remaining 3876 were female (yes, the study appears to have been transphobic).

Of this total, 9 racially distinct names were then used to create 575 white and 549 black mens’ resumes, and 1938 white and black womens’ names. If we assume these names were divided amongst the total for each race equally, this means about 62 resumes were sent out for each mens’ name, and about 215 were sent for each womens’ name. Now, when the study compares the employability of “Greg” to that of “Jamal,” it tells us that the former received a 7.8% callback rate whereas the latter received only a 6.6% callback rate. Since these percentages are out of 62 attempts, what this means is that Greg received 5 returned calls, while Jamal received 4. The actual difference between them turns out to be a meager one call. The numbers fare only slightly better for the female applicants: Emily’s 7.9% callback rate equals 17 returned calls; Lakisha’s 5.5% rate equals 12. So in this case we have a whole five calls of difference between them. But this brings me to an even deeper problem.

On page 19, we see a record of the percentage callbacks obtained by each name.

Now, if we average four of the nine white female names (Emily, Anne, Jill, and Allison), we get a callback rate of 8.5%. If we average four of the black female names (Latoya, Kenya, Latonya, and Ebony), we get a callback rate of 8.95%. Together, this means the four white females averaged 18 calls each, while the four black females averaged 19 calls each. If we include Laurie and Tanisha, this only drops to 8.7% white versus 8.3% black returned calls—a difference of 19 white to 18 black returned calls.

What we find here is a striking degree of equality across over half of the total sample size.

Why haven’t commentators on the implications of this study seen fit to mention this?

In fact, to borrow an argument from Richard Lewontin, there seems to be more variation within each racial group’s rate of callbacks than there is between them.

Kristen received 75% more calls than Emily (13.1% versus 7.9%, or 28 versus 16 calls).
Brad received 170% more calls than Todd (15.9% versus 5.9%, or 10 versus 4 calls).
Jermaine received 200% more calls than Rasheed (9.6% versus 3.0%, or 6 versus 2 calls).
Ebony received 300% more calls than Aisha (9.6% versus 2.2%, or 20 versus 5 calls).

Even the smallest of these within-demographic gaps is larger than the between-demographic gap. The white females as a whole received 53% more returned calls than the black females as a whole (10% versus 6.5%). The white men as a whole received 49% more returned calls than the black men as a whole (8.8% versus 5.9%). Thus, there turns out to be 42% more variation within white women and 466% more variation within black women than there is between the two,[5] and 247% more variation within white men and 308% more variation within black men than there is between the two.[6] There would thus seem to be a greater burden to explain the within-group differences than the between-group differences. Similarly, several black names performed better than several white ones. Ebony (20) received more calls than Emily (17), Anne (18), and Jill (18), the same number as Allison (20) and Laurie (20), and only one less than Sarah (21). Similarly, Leroy and Jermaine averaged 6 calls each; Todd, Neil, Geoffrey, Brett, Brendan, Greg, and Matthew averaged only 4.5 each. What’s with the superiority of Leroys over Matthews and Ebonys over Annes?

Or, to put it another way:

If Aisha received such a low callback rate because employers discriminate against blacks, then why did they not discriminate against Ebony, whose name literally means “black”?

Hilariously, the authors themselves even admit in their conclusion on page 20 that “there is significant variation in callback rates by name. . . . chance alone could produce such variation . . . .”

Steven Levitt of Freakonomics fame and Roland Fryer, a black economist, performed a different study called “The Causes and Consequences of Black Names” in 2004.[7] After looking at every single child born in California since 1961—in total, more than 16 million real-world subjects—documenting their eventual life outcomes, and then performing a regression analysis to see if “black names” had any adverse effects, they found that in the real world, there is “no relationship between how Black one’s name is and life outcomes.” They did find a relationship between socioeconomic status and later life outcomes, but with that controlled for, the effect of names (such as would go on one’s resume) disappeared completely. Funny enough, while “Are Emily and Greg . . .” has been cited some 1500+ times, “The Causes and Consequences . . .” has been cited less than 300. That absolutely should tell you something about the state of the field of sociology today.

Finally, a 2015 study by Cory Koedel called “Race and gender effects on employer interest in job applicants: new evidence from a resume field experiment”[8] tried to recreate the original “Are Emily and Greg” study while incorporating controls based on the insights gleaned from Fryer and Levitt’s study confirmed that distinctively black first names like “Precious” and “Tyrone” are associated with poor later outcomes only because they are correlated with low socioeconomic status (with blacks of the same socioeconomic status, with or without names like these, having perfectly equivalent life outcomes). To control for that, Koedel gave his fictional applicants distinctively black last names like Washington and Jefferson, and combined them with ambiguous first names such as Chloe and Ryan which are used by black and white Americans alike. His study’s conclusion?

Fryer and Levitt (2004) show that after taking into account the socioeconomic correlates of distinctively African-American sounding names, the large effect of these names on employer responses attenuates. Our findings provide evidence consistent with this point using newer, experimental data. [There is] little evidence of systematic employer preferences for applicants from particular race and gender groups.

All of this refutes the idea that employers simply discriminate against applicants on the basis of race itself, and it shows how sloppy journalists and researchers willing to take a study like “Are Emily and Greg . . .” as such impressive evidence are.

However, it could also be said that it merely pushes the real questions back rather than answers them, because leftists will be more than happy to change the subject and claim that racism is the only reason blacks in the United States experience greater rates of poverty, anyway. However, even if there is some truth to that, it most certainly isn’t the whole story—one’s behavior influences whether or not one will end up poor just as much as poverty influences one’s behavior.

We can see this quite vividly if we look closely at the relationship between poverty and crime. I’ve written an essay at Zombie Meditations titled “The ‘Poverty’ of Sociology” which covers that topic and defends the relevance of the human biodiversity perspective in extensive detail. While there is still much more to be said, the conclusion that I establish there—that there is far more influence of heredity on criminal behavior (which in turn will cause one to gravitate towards certain kinds of environments) than there is of those environments in causing criminal behavior—most likely applies to questions like these in general.[9]


5. 53% versus 75% and 300%.
6. 49% versus 170% and 200%.

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Bill
    Posted June 3, 2016 at 3:19 am | Permalink

    Often employers go through dozens of negroes and only negroes. They keep hiring them and eventually firing them, trying in vain to fill a quota.

    As a last resort an employer will literally go into a black church or barber shop and tell everybody inside that they’re hired if they want the job.

    Sometimes the NAACP will complain that no blacks are being hired to a position even though no blacks have applied for it.

    Regarding heredity as a stronger predictor of Life outcomes I remember some study that showed that when young children were given the option of eating candy that was placed in front of them right away or waiting a couple of minutes and getting even more candy, the ones that couldn’t wait and gobbled the candy up right away tended to have poor life outcomes whereas those that were able to wait till the amount was increased minutes later had much better life outcomes.

  2. Magister Ludi
    Posted June 2, 2016 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    Does the author presuppose human equality?

    • Posted June 2, 2016 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

      “Nobody is equal to anybody. Even the same man is not equal to himself on different days.”

  3. Magister Ludi
    Posted June 2, 2016 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    It would be very unintelligent for an employer not to discriminate and ensure they hire the best possible candidate for the job. The studies show, if anything, how brainwashed American society has become not to discriminate between Greg and Jamal. I’m not

    • Posted June 2, 2016 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

      Well, there is a difference between discriminating against Jamal because Jamal would perform poorly, and discriminating against Jamal becausue other people named Jamal perform poorly, even though you have direct reason to think that this particular Jamal doesn’t. Discrimination against individuals on the basis of group averages can be rational, but only if you lack more reliable individual factors to base your judgment on. The pretense of these studies is that they demonstrate the latter. So my argument is that regardless of how you would feel about that if it was happening, it just isn’t.

      The first kind of discrimination probably does take place. If an employer doesn’t call “Tyrone” back because he can infer some things about Tyrone’s background that would be relevant to his behavior and performance, note that that is consistent with Levitt and Fryer’s finding, because “Tyrone” just makes this process more efficient. Had he been named “Ryan”, he might have gotten a call back, but that same employer likely would spot those same things about his background that are the real reason for the discrimination against “Tyrone” during the interview and still decide not to hire “Ryan” anyway.

  4. Darius
    Posted June 2, 2016 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Having the name Darius, which is a very predominately black name, and being white, I can honestly say that I have been called back on almost every job I have ever applied for. It infuriates me to no end when people say that blacks aren’t called back because of their names.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted June 2, 2016 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

      I am sure they think you are Persian.

    • Dr. Krieger
      Posted June 2, 2016 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

      Is it you?

  5. Posted June 2, 2016 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    “About six years ago, I was still indoctrinated by leftist thought enough to start a small online group I called “ARSENAL” (it stood for something like “Anti-Racist Studies e-North American Library,” from what I can remember). I started the group for the purposes of sharing and discussing sociological studies on race; and among the individuals I invited there was a black lesbian sociology professor I encountered in a prison abolitionist group.”

    You were waaay worse than me. I don’t have to feel bad anymore.

    • Posted June 2, 2016 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

      It was really, really, really, really bad.

      But I wouldn’t trade it for anything, because I don’t think I would want to fight the Left as much as I do now if it weren’t for those experiences. If I was a normie living a normie day–to–day life, I think my eyes would probably have glazed over in disinterest had I stumbled into a website like this one. I think I would have shrugged and felt amused if I saw examples of hysterical Leftist behavior. But now, “What if Lefties actually managed to take over everything?” doesn’t feel like a hypothetical exercise, because I’ve experienced first–hand what it would be like to live in a world they dominate. Now, finding and building alternatives feels like a literal imperative for survival.

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4


    The Node


    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes


    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance


    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy


    The Path of Cinnabar


    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace


    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above