From the NYT comments:
* African Americans, have, unwittingly created their own unique problem. Naming of black children with converged names such Deshong, Kenisha, et. al., is desirable by blacks for many reason but it is seen as unnecessary and regrettably it is an open invitation for discrimination. Whites associate the black names with criminality or worse, with assumptions about socio-economic status, intelligence or simply as a way that says this person will cause trouble. Yes, it is very, very wrong to make those casual associations. But, race is a criteria for too many people. The names just open the door for discrimination. And again, yes, it is very wrong.
Jews in America have endured this discrimination since their arrival in the United States several generations ago. Many Jews got around the discrimination because they are white and the names could just as well be a good, Christian name. For instance Stein, may be of German origin and not necessarily Jewish. Other Jews deliberately change their names to avoid discrimination. The name Israel was changed to Iselin. First names remained basically American and many reached into the bible. Ruth, Rachel, Sara, Joseph, Jacob and many others simply referred to biblical names of the patriarchs. The names were easily recognized by white christians as part of Judeo-Christian heritage but were not necessarily a Jewish name.
The current issue is discrimination and a desire to create identity. The desire and the reality work against each other.
* “If a person is unstereotypically nonwhite — which is to say, for example, that he or she acts white — that person is more likely to be considered for the job.”
In other words, if an person is able to read, write, and speak standard English, is willing to work, and does not have a criminal record, then the person is more likely to be considered for a job.
* This conversation would be turned on its head if we were talking about the NBA or NFL teams as employers where unusual black names are in the majority, or baseball teams, in which case Hispanic names are the norm. I suspect that if a “Tom Smith” applied sight unseen, and stats unseen to these teams he would probably be overlooked as a likely under performer….I would also suspect that in places like Silicon Valley, first names that refer to people of Indian or Chinese origin might improve one’s chances of getting an interview.
* I cannot believe that the author of this article would say “..which is to say, for example that he or she acts white”. It is such a sad reflection of African Americans and their self worth. I say this as a black person of west indian parentage. The author is a presumably professional woman, who is using a phrase ‘acting white’ to describe people who do not exhibit behavior typical of ‘the ghetto’. I wish african americans like this author could get out more, so that they could see that for black people outside of the US, what she calls ‘acting white’ has absolutely nothing to do with race, and everything to do with social expectations, for people of all races. For example in a multi-racial business setting in the Caribbean, no one associates being business like with ‘acting white’. People associate behaviors with socio-economic status, not with race. Middle income and above blacks generally do not have any interaction with the equivalent of ‘the ghetto’ any more than whites do, so why would behaving the way they are socialized to behave be an indication of ‘acting white’? This is why I always say that the root problems in black america are self inflicted.
* Not a roadblock to becoming president.
* You say, “African-American names became symbols of resistance. They resist uniformity and West European influence, and therefore the limiting cultural framework of how one should present his or herself.” Do employers regularly hire those who are a “symbol of resistance”? When teamwork in the workplace is a necessity, “resistance” is not a characteristic one looks for! As for “resisting West European influence”? Well, we’re a country that was founded by Western Europeans, our laws and customs reflect that, and we’re still that by a slim majority today. Tribalism has no place in the workplace or any other place for that matter.
It’s interesting that all these made-up names (and no name in Africa ever resembled these names), are something relatively new. There used to be a lot of Franklin Roosevelt Jones in the black community. Blacks that work for me have European names as do their children. It’s the grandchildren that have these “unique” names.
When parents of ANY color/ethic group give their child a name that will be considered peculiar in their area, it’s a disadvantage. I’m referring to names that may be fine for whites in Alabama – names such as Leffiew – but are going to be a major handicap for that child when he grows up and takes a job in NYC.
There are far better ways for ones child to stand out and be unique than by giving them a name that most people would find weird. If you want an unusual name, try Mary and John – don’t see those much these days.
* Chinese-Americans usually adopt a common Christian first name in place of a name difficult to pronounce for Westerners. Is it racist to suggest that someone with a name like La’Tisha or Shawnequa change it to Tish or Shauna as a nom de travaille?
* The author’s name is Morgan, which is quite neutral. And the author is doing well – in part because her neutral name shielded her from having resumes immediately thrown in the trash, as would happen to a “Shaniqua” or a “Rayshawn”. Her parents loved her enough not to burden her with a name that might block her from getting a foot in the door. Parents should avoid making a statement with the names they give their kids. Rich people can get away with it but average parents and their kids can’t. How do you think ” Moon Unit” would have fared with his name if his parent wasn’t well-known and presumably reasonably well-off?
* Screening candidates for jobs is not without cost. It takes time to painstakingly go through resumes, sometimes hundreds of them. As Nobel Prize Laureate Dan Kahneman proposes his book, Thinking Fast and Slow, screeners will start to use heuristics to simplify the decision making process.
If stereotypically (I don’t have the data but I suspect this is statistically true as well) a “ghetto” name is far more likely to lead to an unsuited candidate, screeners are going to use that rule to speed up their decisions.
An economist would say, that might be perfectly rational.
* How many people came through Ellis Island and either changed their name or had them changed by officials there? A lot. During WW1 many people with German last names changed them to sound more Anglo. Even today, people from all over the world “westernize” their names when they come to the US.
People do what they need to do to succeed in the job market.
* I will simply note the obvious: none of the black pundits in this debate have “ghetto names”. Indeed, I’m not sure I can think of a single black pundit of any note who has such a name, though they are obviously pretty common (look to any sports team to verify that fact).
What does this say about what those names actually indicate?
