Who is discriminated against more: Gays or Socialists?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I found the set up for this study to be hilarious:

"I chose an experience in a gay community organization that could not be easily dismissed as irrelevant to a job application," Tilcsik writes. "Thus, instead of being just a member of a gay or lesbian campus organization, the applicant served as the elected treasurer for several semesters, managing the organization's financial operations."
The second resume Tilcsik sent listed experience in the "Progressive and Socialist Alliance" in place of the gay organization. Since employers are likely to associate both groups with left-leaning political views, Tilcsik could separate any "gay penalty" from the effects of political discrimination.
The results showed that applicants without the gay signal had an 11.5 percent chance of being called for an interview. However, gay applicants had only a 7.2 percent chance. That difference amounts to a 40 percent higher chance of the heterosexual applicant getting a call.

Linky.

I understand what they were doing, but none of the universities that I've been to or looked into had Socialist organisations . I've found a few online, but they are rather spare compared to the LGBTQ groups.

But if being actively Queer merits a political bias penalty, shouldn't that be included in the anti-gay bias?

 

[pipelineaudio]

this thread will not be complete until we have a "no true socialist..."

 

[JeanFromBNA]

Gays. I don't think that you're likely to be killed for being a socialist in religiously conservative countries or communities.

 

[stilicho]

Socialist organisations....LGBTQ groups.

Aren't they pretty much indistinguishable one from the other?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Also, in what country is this study conducted?

Unlike the US, socialist is not nearly a swearword in most of the world.
In europe, having been an active member of a socialist campus organisation is a nice plus on your resume when you're applying for a management position in a bank in pretty much all countries.
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that putting the same for a gay/lesbian organization in the more southern european countries does not help.

 

[sarge]

"Who is" or "Who shpuld be"?

I suspect that being openly gay might have as big an impact as being openly socialist, but clearly it should not. "Gay" is not a choice, while "socialist" is not only a choice, it is indicative of a problem with rational thought.

 

[excaza]

Unlike the US, socialist is not nearly a swearword in most of the world.

"Gay" is not a choice, while "socialist" is not only a choice, it is indicative of a problem with rational thought.

Damn Europeans and their lack of rational thought.

 

[sarge]

Damn Europeans and their lack of rational thought.

On the off chance that you were serious, I'll point out two things:

1. Many folks would argue that most of Europe is "socialist" only when compared to the US.

2. Europe also
a. drinks room temperature sodas and beer
b. use the metric (or communist) system of measurement
c. can't grill a steak or cook a decent hamburger


Are these really the people we want to emulate?

 

[excaza]

On the off chance that you were serious, I'll point out two things:

1. Many folks would argue that most of Europe is "socialist" only when compared to the US.

I would argue that they are "socialist" based on their socio-economic policies.

2. Europe also
a. drinks room temperature sodas and beer
b. use the metric (or communist) system of measurement
c. can't grill a steak or cook a decent hamburger

a.
b. The US being too lazy and stubborn to ditch a system that is so completely ass-backwards it should be killed with fire is hardly a decent argument against emulating Europe's policies.
c.

Are these really the people we want to emulate

There are plenty of things they do much, much better than we do, so I don't see a problem with it.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

a.
b. The US being too lazy and stubborn to ditch a system that is so completely ass-backwards it should be killed with fire is hardly a decent argument against emulating Europe's policies.
c.

I agree with you on a and b. But when it comes to C, I don't think I've ever had a good hamburger in Europe.

 

[IMST]

So, anyone want to talk about the study? Or is this going to be entirely a thread about how much some of you don't like gays or socialists, of which I'm both.

The callback gap varied widely according to the location of the job, Tilcsik found. In fact, most of the overall gap detected in the study was driven by the Southern and Midwestern states in the sample -- Texas, Florida, and Ohio. The Western and Northeastern states in the sample (California, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and New York) had only small and statistically insignificant callback gaps.

I'm rather surprised that there wasn't more anti socialist sentiment in the south at least. I wish they put in a control with a more politically neutral organization to see what kind of difference having either one made.

Gay applicants had lower callback rates when the employer described the ideal candidate for the job as "assertive," "aggressive," or "decisive.

Clearly these employers have not met me. I'm known in my department for leading it in the first two.

 

[Antiquehunter]

I found the set up for this study to be hilarious:


(snip.)

But if being actively Queer merits a political bias penalty, shouldn't that be included in the anti-gay bias?

Where is the assumption made that because one is homosexual, one is 'left leaning'? That seems a rather dangerous assumption to make.

As a non-left leaning gay male, the whole question strikes me as pernicious. How does one definine being 'more' discriminated against? Its pretty cut & dry, isn't it? Either one is disciminated against, or one is not.

 

[IMST]

Where is the assumption made that because one is homosexual, one is 'left leaning'? That seems a rather dangerous assumption to make.

As a non-left leaning gay male, the whole question strikes me as pernicious. How does one definine being 'more' discriminated against? Its pretty cut & dry, isn't it? Either one is disciminated against, or one is not.

If one in one hundred employers tear up my resume is that the same as all one hundred doing so? There are certainly degrees of discrimination in terms of quality of action and likelihood of action.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I believe this study is flawed because job applications are subject to a different culture than ordinary life. It's called professionalism. There are expectations about how you present yourself. I would hesitate to interview someone who went out of their way to convey their sexual orientation on a job application simply because doing so indicates a lack of familiarity with professionalism.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't believe the workplace is the appropriate venue to bring up sex, religion, or politics. This experiment brought in two of those things in the application. I'd imagine any savvy hirer would steer clear of those applicants.

 

[GreyArea]

Thanks for bringing up this study, Tsukasa Buddha. It's interesting.

I wish they put in a control with a more politically neutral organization to see what kind of difference having either one made.

I thought the same thing. We know from the article that the socialist resumes generated an 11 percent callback rate. What is the overall average callback rate? The article didn't mention it.

Is there a difference in callbacks between applicants who report extracurricular involvement versus those who report none? That might be a different kind of study control.

Have there been audit studies that examine callbacks for a range of political affiliations? I imagine that being part of the College Republicans or something similar would be advantageous in many cases, but do we know for certain? And how much advantageous above the norm would it be?

The technique Tilcsik used, known as audit study, has been used in the past to expose hiring prejudice based on race and on sex. This is the first major audit study to test the receptiveness of employers to gay male job applicants.

When reading the article, I thought it would be interesting to see how gay "applicants" compare with atheist "applicants". I suspect that callbacks would be even lower for the latter. Here's why.

 

[Antiquehunter]

If one in one hundred employers tear up my resume is that the same as all one hundred doing so? There are certainly degrees of discrimination in terms of quality of action and likelihood of action.

Well in this example, you are not likely to know that one employer refused to consider you (for whatever reason), however if you haven't had a callback by the time you've sent out 100, you probably have reason to believe your CV needs some work.

One can experience discrimination for any number of reasons. I'm not sure it is relevant to gauge whether one is 'more' discriminated against because one perceived to be gay vs one is perceived to eat poptarts for breakfast.

In this example, considering even in the 'less discriminatory' example, they still were only getting an interview on about a 1:10 basis. Maybe the issue wasn't discrimination, but a crappy CV?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm not sure it is relevant to gauge whether one is 'more' discriminated against because one perceived to be gay vs one is perceived to eat poptarts for breakfast.

I wouldn't interview someone who put either "I'm gay!" or "I eat poptarts for breakfast" on their resume. It's not the appropriate venue for that information.

eta: What I'm trying to say is that you don't have be biased against the thing communicated, you can approve of the thing but think it shouldn't have been communicated.

 

[Antiquehunter]

I wouldn't interview someone who put either "I'm gay!" or "I eat poptarts for breakfast" on their resume. It's not the appropriate venue for that information.

eta: What I'm trying to say is that you don't have be biased against the thing communicated, you can approve of the thing but think it shouldn't have been communicated.

A blatantly homophobic & breakfastist response. Just the sort of thing I've come to expect from YOUR kind.

 

[IMST]

I wouldn't interview someone who put either "I'm gay!" or "I eat poptarts for breakfast" on their resume. It's not the appropriate venue for that information.

eta: What I'm trying to say is that you don't have be biased against the thing communicated, you can approve of the thing but think it shouldn't have been communicated.

However, if I'm straight out of college looking for an entry level financial position with a limited resume to date of employment, being treasurer of a student organization may be my best practical experience. If the nature of the group is that it's gay, or politically active, or of a particular religion or whatever else, is that a reason to reject the application for lack of professionalism? Should the applicant leave off their practical experience in such a case?

 

[Antiquehunter]

However, if I'm straight out of college looking for an entry level financial position with a limited resume to date of employment, being treasurer of a student organization may be my best practical experience. If the nature of the group is that it's gay, or politically active, or of a particular religion or whatever else, is that a reason to reject the application for lack of professionalism? Should the applicant leave off their practical experience in such a case?

No - however there is probably a way to communicate it in such a way that would be less politicizing.

I work for a company that has a very prominent and historical right wing economist's name as part of the company title. Depending on the company I was applying to, I would abbreviate my current employer's name (for example).

Ideally, one shouldn't feel motivated to self-censor - however this is a job application, not a dinner date, nor a podium. One's focus should be to get to the next step of the hiring process, not drive home one's point of view.

After you're hired, you can annoy your co-workers all you want.