Getting a Job by Hiding Your Ethnic Name

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." So says William Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet. But many people today would disagree. In the New York Times Michael Lou writes about "Whitening the Resume" (Free registration required to read) In this article he talks about African American job candidates taking the "blackness" out of their names, schools, experience and references in order to get a foot in the door for an interview. Although regrettable, it is not a new phenomenon. A couple of decades ago women were taking the "femaleness" out of their names by using intials. Asians and Middle Easterners were "Americanizing" their names. Even earlier many Italians and Germans were doing the same thing. Hispanics were/are reducing the size of their names by dropping the several family names in their complete names. People will do what they perceive will give them an edge, especially in these "downturn days." In the 80's even young white men were changing their names by initializing their first name and going by their middle name because that "appeared more executive." People even do it regardless of age, sex, race, etc. just because they have a name they don't like. Agnes Susan Smith may is not going to feel her name says youthful and vibrant, so she drops the Agnes and becomes Susan. (Apologies to all Agnes out there.)

Is it right that they feel compelled to do this? Not really. Is it reality, perhaps, the research says so, anyway. Names are very powerful. What we hang on our children can boost or scar them. They can be trendy for the time but become dated with the passage of time. My contempories, many of whom were hippies, named their children Bridge, River, Summer, Spring, Flower, Dweezil, MoonChild, Chastity, etc. I am surprised I have never met "Oh Wow Man". So you parents out there think about what you are going to do to that little child who will someday be an 80 year old with that moniker.

Back to the potential discriminatory decision made on the basis of someone's name. I would hope that recruiters would look beyond that. Perhaps we should have a universal process for just calling someone "Candidate #_____". ( I do seem to recall something like this in the past.) But let's face it, discrimination, though somewhat diminished from three decades ago, does still exist. (See my post on The Big ISM: Racism.) But not all recruiters are lillywhite males. Many are female, many are "of color." So my question to them is "How do you react when you get a resume with an obvious ethnic name?" "Do you screen for 'whiteness'?" The same holds true for managers. Not all are white. Not all are males. Will a black female manager with a name like Mary Wilson have a negative reaction to a black female candidate named Eboni?

I don't know the answer to this. I would like some guidance. Someone tell me that ethnicity is totally ignored in their organization and people are only hired on the basis of their qualification. Make us feel good that progress is being made.

The BIG ISM: Racism

Racism has a long and storied history in the United States, in fact in the history of mankind. However, since I am dealing with the human resources implication under US law I will stick to that arena (mostly.) The emotional impact of racism is still quite evident with the recent encounter between a Harvard professor and a Cambridge police officer and a healthcare town hall in Georgia.

The dictionary definition of racism is: "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Or ..Discrimination or prejudice based on race. " Wikipedia as a more complete treatment of racism found here.

Employers are, or should be, on guard constantly for situations that hint of racism. Programs on diversity have been around for a couple of decades to help raise awareness. And of course Federal and State laws make it illegal to use race as a determining factor in employment. Let's explore the Federal laws.

In the US racism was, and still is to a large extent, a black/white phenomenon. It has since expanded considerably and "minorities" of many "shapes and sizes" are all protected. However, the history of the law shows its origins. The big law that deals with discrimination based on race is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the movement of black Americans in the early 1960's led most notably by Martin Luther King, Jr. However, the law became more than just an act against discrimination targeted toward black Americans. It became a law that covered a broad spectrum of "protected categories" that has gotten broader as time as progressed. It is THE law that guides HR in its daily functioning. It was the FIRST of the many "social" pieces of legislation passed in the last four decades. I am not going into the mechanics of the law, most knowledgeable HR people know them and if you don't you can find them at Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title VII however, was not the first Federal law to prohibit race discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) was the first law to provide protection against race discrimination. It was a law that specifically declared African Americans to be citizens and entitled to a series of rights previously reserved to white men. It was originally designed specifically to protect African Americans (and my guess is, just African American men) in alot of situations, but has since been expanded to all races. Unlike Title VI, which applies to employers of 15 or more, Section 1981 applies to private employers of any size. Because the law actually dealt with protection in making contracts, of which employment was considered one of them, it also protects other contractual situations such as partnerships and independent contractors. Title VII does not provide this protection. Section 1981 prohibits using race in hiring, promotions, employment benefits, pay, time off, and firing. Harassment and retaliation is also prohibited. Only INTENTIONAL discrimination is covered, not disparate treatment as is covered in Title VII.

Generally, if a firm is being sued for discrimination the plaintiff will sue under both laws. Title VII requires filing a complaint with the EEOC. Section 1981 does not. Title VII complaints are handled by the EEOC. Section 1981 is only handled by the courts. So in situations where the EEOC does not find fault may not free you from a civil lawsuit filed under Section 1981.

Obviously, it would be wonderful if we had a world free of racism. And we have certainly made long strides in this country as the election of President Obama lays testament to. But is it realistic to think it will ever disappear? I don't think it will. In my early days of college I spent alot of time studying mammalian behavior, specifically primates. One of the aspects of behavior that is evident in monkey troop behavior is something called xenophobia. According to the dictionary that is defined as: "...fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign." Many mammals exhibit xenophobia, they drive strange animals from their troops, their herds, etc. I think we have a deep seated remnant of xenophobia in our genetic make up which results in the fear of the different from us. Add to that the "intellectual" capacity that we have over other mammals and we end up with racism, feelings of superiority combined with a fear or dislike of the unknown.

The good news is that it can be overcome. Troops and herds do let strangers in because it is good for the genetic survival of the group. Diversity makes things healthier. And one of the hallmarks of the human mammal is that intelligence. We can understand the biases that we come with naturally and we can overcome them. As long as we understand that discrimination may exist we can reduce it and we can overcome it. In the meanwhile we control it with the use of Federal and State laws.

ISM: Three Little Letters That Mean So Many Things

A couple of weeks ago on Twitter (follow me at http://twitter.com/MikeHaberman ) I made a comment about AGEISM. I even wrote a blog about Ageism in the Workplace. Laurie Ruettimann of Punk Rock HR fame came back and made comment to the effect that we seem to have an "ism" in alot of areas. And indeed we do. Racism, the big ISM of the HR world and probably one of the most prevalent ISMs in the United States is once again in the news. Here in Georgia, and elsewhere, rascism is being claimed as the reason people are against a national healthcare plan which has been labled as ObamaCare. (I am not going to get into a discussion on that at the moment so don't roll your eyes and close me down.) But we have also seen recently agesim and sexism. We in HR tend to equate ISM to discrimination. So we may some day end up with "fatism", "shortism", "dumbism", "poorism", "richism" and who knows what else.

But this got me to thinking. What exactly is ISM? So here is the lesson.

1. Ism is a noun which means a particular doctrine, system or theory.


2. But it is also used as a suffix to specify what particular doctrine, system or theory, e.g., pacifism, Catholicism, Darwinism, anthropomorphism, and hedonism (my favorite).


3. It is a suffix that also defines an action, such as terroism; defines a characteristic, such as heroism; a state or condition that results from an excess of something, such as strychninism; or a distinctive or characteristic trait, such as Latinism.


4. It is also an acronym for about at least 50 different organizations as well as Internet and business usage.


5. It is a punk rock/alternative rock band in New York.


6. In Arabic it means a personal name.

So alot of usage for three little letters. Over the coming weeks I will be exploring the one defintion of it that seems prevalent in Human Resources "An attitude of prejuidice against a given group." I will look at racism, ageism, sexism, etc. from a human resources perspective and maybe a little social/scientific perspective as well. So stay tuned.