    
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 2593
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 09:08 pm: | 
|
Discrimination, not illegal immigration, fuels Black job crisis
By Earl Ofari Hutchinson-Guest Columnist-
Updated May 10, 2006, 08:56 am
Protesters gather alongside Thomas Road and 36th Street on May 1 in Phoenix, Ariz., as part of a nationwide boycott intended to show how vital immigrants are to the American economy. Immigrants were encouraged not to work or spend any money on May 1st. Photo: AP/World Wide Photos
The battle continues to rage between economists, politicians, immigrant rights activists and Black anti-immigration activists over whether illegal immigrants are the major cause of double-digit joblessness among poor, unskilled, young Black males. The battle lines are so tight and impassioned that Black anti-immigration activists planned a march for jobs for American-born Blacks on Apr. 28 in Los Angeles. This is a direct counter to the planned mass action three days later by some immigrant rights groups.
According to Labor Department reports, nearly 40 percent of young Black males are unemployed. Despite the Bush administration’s boast that its tax cut and economic policies have resulted in the creation of more than 100,000 new jobs, Black unemployment still remains the highest of any group in America. Black male unemployment for the past decade has been nearly double that of White males. The picture is grimmer for young Black males.
But several years before the immigration combatants squared off, then-University of Wisconsin graduate researcher Devah Pager pointed the finger in another direction, a direction that makes most employers squirm—and that’s toward the persistent and deep racial discrimination in the workplace. Ms. Pager found that Black men without a criminal record are less likely to find a job than White men with criminal records.
Her finger-point at discrimination as the main reason for the racial disparity in hiring set off howls of protest from employers, trade groups and even a Nobel Prize winner. They lambasted her for faulty research. Her sample was much too small, they said, and the questions too vague. They pointed to the ocean of state and federal laws that ban racial discrimination. But in 2005 Ms. Pager, now a sociologist at Princeton, duplicated her study. She surveyed nearly 1,500 private employers in New York City, using teams of Black and White testers, standardized resumes and follow-up visits with telephone interviews with employers. These are the standard methods researchers use to test racial discrimination. The results were exactly the same as in her earlier study, despite the fact that New York has some of the nation’s toughest laws against job discrimination.
Dumping the blame for the chronic job crisis of young, poor Black men on undocumented immigrants stokes the passions and hysteria of immigration reform opponents, but it also lets employers off the hook for discrimination. And it’s easy to see how that could happen. The mountain of federal and state anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action programs and successful employment discrimination lawsuits give the public the impression that job discrimination is a relic of a shameful, racist past. But that isn’t the case, and Ms. Pager’s study is hardly isolated proof of that.
Countless research studies, the Urban League’s annual State of Black America report, a 2005 Human Rights Watch report and the numerous discrimination complaints reviewed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the past decade reveal that employers have devised endless dodges to evade anti-discrimination laws. That includes rejecting applicants by their names or areas of the city they live in. Black applicants may be incorrectly told that jobs advertised were filled already.
In a seven-month comprehensive university study of the hiring practices of hundreds of Chicago area employers, a few years before Ms. Pager’s graduate study, many top company officials when interviewed said they would not hire Blacks. When asked to assess the work ethic of White, Black and Latino employees by race, nearly 40 percent of the employers ranked Blacks dead last. The employers routinely described Blacks as being “unskilled,” “uneducated,” “illiterate,” “dishonest,” “lacking initiative,” “involved with gangs and drugs” or “unstable,” of having “no family values” and being “poor role models.”
The consensus among these employers was that Blacks brought their alleged pathologies to the work place, and were to be avoided at all costs. Not only White employers express such views; researchers found that Black business owners shared many of the same negative attitudes. Other surveys have found that a substantial number of non-White business owners also refuse to hire Blacks. Their bias effectively closed out another area of employment to thousands of Blacks, solely based on their color. This only tells part of the sorry job picture for many poor Blacks.
The Congressional Black Caucus reports that at least half of all unemployed Black workers have been out of work for a year or more. Many have given up looking for work. The Census does not count them among the unemployed. The dreary job picture for the unskilled and marginally skilled urban poor, especially the Black poor, is compounded by the racially skewed attitudes of small and large employers. Even if there was not a single illegal immigrant in America, that attitude insures that many Black job seekers would still find themselves shut out.
(Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. Visit his news and commentary website at www.thehutchinsonreport.com.)
© Copyright 2006 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com |
Email This Page