This example clearly shows how the statistical definition of minorities makes a travesty of the concept and subverts the goals of policies devised to do away with discrimination.] Continued use of the term "Hispanic" [sic] or "Spanish Origin" [sic] denies the very basis upon which discrimination has been based, and confuses the basis for civil rights and affirmative action efforts.
The 1989 HDS was designed to measure the national incidence of discrimination arising during visits by qualified home seekers to a sample of units advertised for sale or rent in major metropolitan area newspapers across the United States. The sample of advertised units was drawn in two stages. First, a sample of metropolitan areas was drawn from major U.S. metropolitan areas with a central city population of 100,000 or more and a substantial proportion of African Americans and/or Hispanics based on the 1980 census (12 percent African American and/or 7 percent Hispanic). Additional tests were conducted in five of these sites to support more in-depth analysis. These sites were chosen with certainty based on their substantial minority population to increase the statistical precision of the national estimates. Each
A 1998 pilot study used paired testing to assess the extent and forms of possible discrimination in the home insurance market. Testers in three metropolitan areas posed as buyers of closely matched homes located in minority and white neighborhoods. They called insurance agents on the telephone to seek insurance quotes. The homes, neighborhoods, and insurance seekers were matched on a wide range of characteristics so that the primary difference within a paired test was whether the home was located in a minority or white neighborhood. Results indicated that buyers in white neighborhoods were no more likely than those in minority neighborhoods to receive quotes, but they were slightly more likely to be offered some desirable types of coverage (in one site) and to receive higher levels of service than minorities (in another site). In Phoenix, substantially higher premiums were quoted for homes in Hispanic neighborhoods, but because the white and Hispanic neighborhoods were in different insurance rating territories, the study could not determine definitively whether the difference in premiums might have been due to legitimate differences in rates of risk and loss (Wissoker et al., 1998).
The first systematic application of paired testing to hiring, conducted in 1989, focused on discrimination against Hispanic men applying for entry-level jobs in Chicago and San Diego. In each of these sites, approximately 150 paired tests were conducted, based on random samples of job openings advertised in the major metropolitan newspapers. A similar study of hiring discrimination against African American men was conducted a year later in Chicago and Washington, D.C. Again, about 200 paired tests were conducted in each metro area, based on random samples of advertised job openings. Both studies found that white applicants were able to advance further in the hiring process than their minority counterparts in a statistically significant share of cases. Specifically, in the Hispanic-white tests in which both testers were able to submit an application, whites re
The 1989 HDS was a major national study of discrimination against African Americans and Hispanics in both the rental and sales housing markets. The study sampled newspaper advertisements in 25 metropolitan areas to produce national estimates of housing discrimination. For each advertisement sampled, a pair of testers who were matched by age and gender were assigned an appropriate income level for the sampled housing. The testers were then sent to the advertising agency to inquire about the advertised unit and request to see it and any other similar available housing.
This is a course project. Analyze what happened in the scenario below, what the consequences either are or might be and how it can be corrected.
You have been asked to look into a company’s promotion policy. Maria, a person of Latino ancestry, has filed a complaint that she was unfairly eliminated for consideration for a promotion because of her distinctive accent. She is a second generation native-born American citizen with a graduate degree and has been with the company for 10 yrs and in her current position for seven. Alex the person who received the promotion is an Anglo, also has a graduate degree but has less time either with the companyor in the position. He is, however, considered to be an "up and comer" and has better job evaluations than Maria. Maria points out that she is not only the only Latina, she is also the only person of color and the only woman in the department. she states that her lower evaluations reflect a built-in bias on the part of her white male supervisors. She states she was told by her supervisor that she was not being promoted because their clients would have trouble understanding her accent.
The company argues that Maria is a good employee but is often loud and aggressive in her approach to co-workers and supervisors and has had some problems with attendance and tardiness. She has been counseled twice for tardiness and once for absence. Each time she gave family problems as reasons. It was acknowledged that her accent was a major consideration but was not because of discrimination. Maria often spoke very rapidly and her accent made understanding difficult when she did. The company alleges that the ability to communicate clearly was an essential component of the job in question. Evaluate the situation. Are there indications of structural or individual discrimination involved or prejudicial attitudes? Is there any indication that Maria was unfairly treated? Is the company within its right to expect its employees who communicate directly with customers to speak in unaccented English? Regardless of your findings, come up with a plan to avoid this sort of thing from happening again.
I took the position that she was discriminated against because she was an Hispanic woman. Paper should be written in that context.