The Myth of White Disadvantage in the Workplace
My doctor, an outspoken liberal, asked if my partner found a new job. “Not yet,” I replied, expecting an air of sympathy or a change of topic. But instead, he prescribed a look of confusion. “But isn’t she a Latina,” he asked. He proceeded to share he has heard a lot of employers are prioritizing diversity. More recently, a family member recommended I use my wife’s surname, López, saying it may increase my chances of getting a job offer.
These misplaced suggestions and comments were not intended to be offensive or imply they disagreed with the notion of non-White job applicants receiving an advantage. But they highlighted a growing conspiracy in the U.S. — people of color are at a major advantage in the job market. In other words, it is a myth of “White Disadvantage.”
In July, thirteen Republican Attorney Generals sent a letter to Fortune 100 companies demanding they “refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, whether under the label of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ or otherwise.” The American Alliance for Equal Rights, the same group behind the case ending affirmative action in college admissions, is now suing Perkins Coi and Morrison & Foerster under the allegation they are discriminating against White candidates. America First filed over a dozen EEOC complaints against Kellogg’s, McDonald’s, and other companies because of their DEI initiatives. Despite these claims, research shows non-White candidates are not benefiting from favoritism — White people are.
A 2023 study involving 12,000 job applicants found “ethnic minorities” received 57.4% fewer positive responses from employers compared to those with traditional English names, despite having identical resumes. The Society for Human Resource Management reported on a separate study involving researchers from the University of Chicago and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Nearly 5,000 resumes were distributed to 1,300 jobs using “typical” Black and White names. The fictional applicants with “Black-sounding” names were 50 percent less likely to receive an interview offer.
In response to name discrimination, some job applicants employ “resume whitening.”
In response to name discrimination, some job applicants employ “resume whitening.” Applicants may scrub their resumes of all racially identifying information, such as their birth name, college name, and membership associations. In a 2016 study titled, Whitened Résumés: Race and Self-Presentation in the Labor Market, one participant said, “On the résumé, I have both my Korean name and my English name, so it kind of compensates for the foreignness.” Another participant said they removed their leadership experience in Black student organizations. The study concludes those with “whitened” resumes receive more positive results, noting employers with “pro-diversity statements” being just as likely to discriminate against non-White candidates.
Those who believe in the myth of non-White favoritism may point to the U.S. Bureau of Labor announcement in April 2023, revealing the unemployment gap between Black and White workers narrowed to historic levels as evidence. Yet, it would be wrong to attribute this to Black people being favored over White people or any other racial group. For one, a single month does not erase nearly 50 years of double-wide margins. Second, the data does not mention the types of jobs being filled by Black workers. If the gap is being closed with low-wage jobs, this would hardly reveal progress, especially considering the continuous racial wage gap. Consider Latina females who earn a meager 57 cents for every dollar a White male earns.
The research shows people of color are not at an advantage in receiving consideration for a job offer, let alone, an equitable pay offer. So what is driving the false narrative? Aside from some Conservative groups spreading the myth through the guise of employment discrimination, as America First Legal is attempting, I am doubtful this is the sole reason. After all, the majority of U.S. workers say “focusing on increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion at work is mainly a good thing” according to a survey by the Pew Research Center.
I believe the primary driver of the myth is employers’ failure to strategically and thoughtfully implement their DEI practices. I observed one example of this as a member of a hiring committee. The supervisor declared she would prioritize hiring a person of color if they were equally matched with another candidate. Unfortunately, this is a common idea, yet, it is built on a false notion — you will never have two equally matching candidates. Each person will have unique experiences, educational backgrounds, and job histories. It’s not only empty, it’s also harmful.
When people of color are presumed to have an advantage in obtaining employment, resentment is likely to result. If the hired candidate happens to be a person of color, their new colleagues may now perceive them as being a “diversity hire.” If they aren’t hired, you get the responses my doctor implied — “How can someone not get a job if they’re given all the advantages?” Hired or not, nobody wins.
If employers want to ensure fair hiring practices, they can forgo the empty statements and seek solutions to the troubling data points I mentioned earlier. Given name discrimination is a widespread barrier to equitable hiring, employers may use “blind recruiting” practices. Personal identifying information is removed from an application. In a way, it is the employer applying “resume whitening” on behalf of the applicant. Katherine McNamee, HR director at the American Alliance of Museums, told SHRM in a 2018 article, “We decided to ask job applicants to not include their name, address, college name, or graduation date on their resume.” Of course, an employer could also have their administrative staff redact this information with a Sharpie before handing it to the hiring manager. Too busy? Software, such as Recruiteze and Pinpoint will do the work for you.
Another powerful way employers can provide more equitable hiring practices without perpetuating harmful myths is to reevaluate their educational requirements. Liberal employers guffawed at the dismantling of affirmative action, but are they willing to adjust their hiring practices in response? As of 2021, only 34 percent of Black Americans and 28 percent of Hispanic Americans have a degree compared to 50 percent of White Americans according to the Lumina Foundation. The loss of affirmative action may make these numbers worse, leaving many people of color at a greater disadvantage in securing employment. Employers can respond by removing unnecessary degree requirements or permitting a select number of years of experience in place of formal education.
I am with the majority of Americans — DEI in the workplace is a good thing. However, it is crucial employers and employees understand equity does not mean anyone is losing rights or receiving an advantage over someone else. Supporters of DEI initiatives must stop spreading such myths, as it has the effects of harming the very people they purport to support.
About the Author | Thomas Guzowski is an Associate Director at a Southern California university where he has led a variety of anti-racism initiatives centered around the intersection of identity and the workplace. Prior, he tackled education and housing inequities at the Cesar Chavez Foundation and AmeriCorps VISTA.
