Systemic Discrimination of Minorities in Employment (Term Paper Sample)

Systemic Discrimination of Racial Minorities Name Institutional Affiliation Course Tutor Due Date Systemic Discrimination of Racial Minorities For centuries, the minority communities in the United States have been subjected to working in deplorable conditions compared to whites. Since the advent of slavery, Blacks and Hispanics have particularly been disadvantaged in all the employment areas (Lang & Lehmann, 2012). Such racial inequality has powerfully shaped American history. After centuries of longstanding discrimination against minorities, the whites in America have continuously accumulated certain privileges in the employment sector at the expense of the blacks (Neumark, 2018). In response to this, several efforts have been directed at rectifying racial discrimination. This includes the implementation of several laws and promoting affirmative actions to elevate the socio-economic status of the blacks (Solomon, Maxwell & Castro, 2019). However, despite significant efforts by social workers to promote equality in the United States, there still exists persistent and systemic racial inequalities in employment leading to poor social and economic outcomes for minority groups. Racial discrimination refers to the treatment of applicants or employees unfavorably due to their race or the possessing certain personal attributes such as skin color, facial features, or hair texture. This conduct is a result of the pervasive racial preconceptions, stereotypes, attitudes, and ideologies that cause people of different races to be treated unfairly (Neumark, 2018). The institution of slavery in the American colonies, which gave rise to a long history of Black Americans' exploitation and segregation, served as the foundation on which the U.S. economy was based. Several government policies and institutional practices of slavery, fugitive Slave Acts, Jim Crow laws, and the New Deal, coupled with the lack of funding for anti-discrimination agencies, strengthened such unequal systems in the U.S. These policy approaches worked together to not only concentrate workers from minority communities in chronically undervalued professions that also encourage racial inequities in employment, salaries, and perks (Neville, Gallardo & Sue, 2016). These policies resulted in stark and persistent inequalities in every measure of social and economic well-being. However, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s brought several changes in the employment sector more so in regards to racial discrimination. During this era, the country played host to sweeping legal and social reforms that aimed at undoing the negatives of slavery and racism in America by significantly reducing the barriers faced by African Americans in several domains, including employment (Solomon, Maxwell & Castro, 2019). This led to a rise in the African American middle class and ensured their inclusion in key areas, creating an illusion that racial discrimination had ended. As a result, race was no longer a major factor in African Americans' and Latinos' quality of life. Several indicators supported this narrative of reduced discriminatory treatment of minorities which include increased endorsement of equality in the country, better graduation rates for African Americans and Latinos, increased diversity as companies hired more minorities, and the election of President Obama to conclude that the U.S had shunned its troubled racial past. The Black Lives Matter movement has recently swept the globe, drawing attention to minorities' ongoing battles against racism and discrimination, not only in police enforcement but also in the workplace. In light of these occurrences, the prevailing assumptions about reducing discrimination practices in the labor force are unfounded. Though the previous explicit prejudice and maltreatment of minorities has declined over time, measures of racism in employment have not changed at all in this view. According to Quillian, Pager, Hexel, and Midtben (2017), racial prejudice has simply evolved into new, more situational, subdued, and covert forms. This ideology is furthered by Pager & Shepherd (2008), who stated that "the contemporary forms of discrimination are often subtle and covert, posing problems for social scientific conceptualization and measurement" (182). Therefore, despite the legal, social, and economic efforts to promote equality, racial discrimination against minorities is consistent in the employment sector. As a result, by upholding the status quo and failing to break the long-standing pattern of disadvantageous minorities, the majority of businesses' hiring policies have contributed to systemic racism. To reverse the progress made in the battle against racism and oppression, the white-to-black ratio in the job market has continued to increase (D'amico, Pawlewicz, Earley & McGeehan, 2017). Even though job seekers from minority communities should be granted the same opportunities as white applicants, persistent racial inequalities are evident. Major disparities exist between minority communities across the country not only in employment but also in the wages paid (Boutwell et al., 2017). This can be attributed to structural racism, deliberate discrimination, existing biases, and employment barriers stemming from systemic practices. The cascading effect of such racism has seen equally qualified minority job-seekers receive fewer call-backs, job offers, and less wages (Neumark, 2018). As a result, the rate of unemployment among the blacks has skyrocketed while that of the whites decreases, leading to a six-times difference. Nunley, Pugh, Romero & Seals (2015) studied the existing racial disparities in the employment sector for new graduates using a resume audit experiment that signaled the job applicant's race. The authors discovered substantial evidence of racial treatment through their responses after applying for over 9,000 online jobs using phony resumes of newly graduated job seekers of various ethnicities and evaluating the responses. According to Nunley, Pugh, Romero & Seals (2015), "black applicants receive approximately 14 percent fewer interview requests than their otherwise identical white counterparts" (1093). Worse still, the findings discovered a substantial increase in the racial gap with perceived productivity characteristics such as having a degree, field, and work experience. Boutwell et al., (2017) Also, when perceived productivity traits were necessary, the racial difference widened, implying that blacks are disadvantaged in employment and take low-wage positions. As a result, the hiring preference for white individuals explains the existing racial disparity in the workplace. Using a meta-analysis of field testing, Quillian, Pager, Hexel, and Midtben (2017) demonstrated that racial hiring discrimination has not changed over time. A study of call-back rates in several industries looked at historical patterns in the hiring of Latinos and African Americans. The findings were in line with Nunley, Pugh, Romero & Seals (2015) in that racial discrimination was striking in the U.S. labor markets. Contrary to claims that the degree of discrimination has declined since 1989, the experimental study established that the levels of discrimination were largely unchanged. Whites therefore get 36% and 24% more call-backs than Latinos and African Americans, respectively. This accounts for a 22% decline in the call-back rate for African Americans compared to Nunley, Pugh, Romero & Seals (2015), who cited a 14% difference between the two races. Applicant education, gender, occupational achievements, and work experience have little effect in altering the study results. In contrast to their white colleagues, black teachers experienced severe prejudice in employment and placement in failing schools, according to D'amico, Pawlewicz, Earley, and McGeehan's (2017) research. Pager & Shepherd (2008) also illustrated a number of aspects of racial discrimination in the consumer, credit, housing, and employment markets. Through a review of different sets of literature on discrimination, the study found that, compared to whites, blacks still experience significant forms of racism; after an experimental audit, it was estimated that white hiring preferences ranged from 50% to 240%. For example, in Boston and Chicago, the call-back rate for white candidates was 50% greater than for equally qualified black applicants. Furthermore, contrary to Borowczyk-Martins, Bradley & Tarasonis's (2017) findings that racial gap had minimal effects on higher skills-set, Pager & Shepherd (2008) found that improving the applicants' credentials helped the white applicants more as opposed to blacks. Following the theory that most field experiments assess for hiring discrimination by watching whether the applicants obtain an invitation to an interview, Quillian, Lee, and Oliver (2020) evaluated for extra racial prejudice after the call-back. The study questioned the adequacy of understanding discrimination in the appointment process based on the assessment of an invitation to interviews, while the ultimate subject was discrimination on job offers. In so doing, the study furthered the subject of discrimination not only in the interview invitation but also in the job offer outcomes. The findings revealed additional discrimination in hiring after the invitation to an interview. Quillian, Lee, & Oliver (2020) state that "majority applicants in our sample receive 53% more call-backs than comparable minority applicants, but majority applicants receive 145% more job offers than comparable minority applicants" (12). This implies a systemic level of discrimination against racial minorities, starting from the invitation to an interview to the subsequent offering of the job leading to the existing racial inequalities in the employment sector. To further this ideology of systemic discrimination of minorities in the wor...