Is Race “Even Remotely Relevant”?

Interestingly, Randy Cohen, the New York Times Magazine Sunday “Ethicist,” thinks not. Replying to a query from Malik Raymond Singleton, who asks whether it is wrong to drop his “ethnically identifying first name” on job applications, Ethicist Cohen replies:

This name change is a reasonable response to racial bias. It would be unethical — and often illegal — to change your name to commit or cover up fraud. But a potential employer has no right, ethically or legally, to refuse an interview because of an applicant’s race. Thus you are not withholding information that is even remotely relevant.

Interesting, and a number of other interesting questions come to mind.

If racially identifying information is not “even remotely relevant,” are employers ever justified in asking for it?

What if Malik Raymond Singleton, for reasons having nothing to do with race, had always used “Ray” or “Raymond” as his first name. Would it be “wrong” for him to use “Malik” as his first name when applying for a job if he thought the employer would prefer him because of his race? (Of course, if race is not “even remotely relevant,” then it goes without saying that it would be wrong for an employer to employ racial preferences. In any event, that certainly wasn’t said here.)

Since it is “reasonable” for one person to withhold racially identifying information, would it be reasonable for minorities always to withhold racially identifying information from potential employers? If they did, how would employers ensure sufficient “diversity”?

Ethicist Cohen asserts that it is both unethical and illegal for a potential employer “to refuse an interview because of an applicant’s race.” He thus must believe that, say, a university department that refuses to interview a male applicant for a women’s history position or a white applicant for a black history position (not uncommon behavior in academia these days) is acting both illegally and immorally. If so, that has gone without saying as well.

Say What? (10)

  1. Andrew Lazarus May 31, 2004 at 7:17 pm | | Reply

    Of course, there’s an empirical survey that black-sounding names are less likely to get interviews, but we can always bury our heads in the sand.

  2. Richard Nieporent May 31, 2004 at 8:44 pm | | Reply

    Randy Cohen is to ethics as Dr. Jack Kevorkian is to medicine.

  3. SC May 31, 2004 at 10:01 pm | | Reply

    You call this whole episode “interesting”. Is it impossible for you to imagaine that an employer could discriminate against minorities?

    A shorter version of your post: What do you expect, black guy, because of affirmative action we have every right to discriminate against you.

  4. John Rosenberg May 31, 2004 at 11:29 pm | | Reply

    Andy and SC: A more careful re-reading of my post will reveal that I do not deny that racial discrimination exists and that some employers, illegally and unethically, react negatively (let’s say, award a negative preference)to black-sounding names. Thus I do not criticize Mr. Singleton for dropping his ethnically identifiable first name in his job applications. Now, I would respond to your criticism of the questions I raised about the interesting (at least to me)issues suggested by Ethicist Cohen’s discussion … if you’d made any.

  5. Andrew Lazarus June 1, 2004 at 1:43 am | | Reply

    I think, John, that my complaint is not with you but with the so-called Ethicist. I try to be a pragmatist on this issue, and a response that doesn’t even mention, much less engage, empirical (and, AFAIK, uncontroverted) sociological evidence of bias against “black” names is just a waste of dead tree.

  6. ELC June 1, 2004 at 9:21 am | | Reply

    I wonder how the “Ethicist” would reply if the question opened, not with “I am an African-American male looking for Web programming work” but with “I am an African-American male applying to colleges where I can study web programming.”

  7. Laura June 1, 2004 at 1:46 pm | | Reply

    ELC – exactly.

    This may be one of those “critical mass” issues. If we didn’t call people in based on resumes with black-sounding names, we’d never interview anybody. That’s the reality of demographics around here. And we can’t afford to put aside a good-looking resume because of the name on it. But unless the prospective employers are making a deliberate effort to be fair, Jermal and LaKeisha still may called in before some folks whose names are homonymous with body parts, for instance. There’s an appearance of ignorance there, even though it’s most likely the ignorance of the parents, not the person with the funny name. My child’s (black) government teacher referred to those as “anesthesia names” – Mom wasn’t fully alert yet when she named the kid.

  8. yuaer July 13, 2004 at 4:21 am | | Reply

    You call this whole episode “interesting”. Is it impossible for you to imagaine that an employer could discriminate against minorities?

  9. buy generic viagra online January 10, 2005 at 2:47 am | | Reply

    President Reagan has noted that there are too many economic pundits and

    forecasters and has decided on an excess prophets tax.

    buy generic viagra cheap generic viagra JHM: I’m not putting quake in the kernel source

    but we should put quake in the boot floppies to one-up

    Caldera’s tetris game.. ;>

    hgeneric viagra cheap viagra onlinePresident Reagan has noted that there are too many economic pundits and

    forecasters and has decided on an excess prophets tax.

Say What?