Shut Up and Dribble

 Covert Mechanisms in Economic institutions

We all recall the days when overt racial discrimination characterized access and progress within economic institutions.  These obvious, observable, and easily documented practices limited hiring and promotions to select groups while denying such to others.  Targeting marginalized groups was codified into laws and baked into institutional policies and procedures.  These laws, practices, and policies were the most obvious and easiest racism to spot and document.  They were deliberate acts of discrimination affecting racial groups.  Multiple examples of overt racism exist, including hateful speech, derogatory remarks, insults, intimidation, and terrorism.  The objective of overt racism is to channel racialized groups into career paths, typically at the lowest, most hazardous, dirty, and least skilled occupations.  These positions, often characterized as the most precarious, are the last hired and first fired during times of institutional distress.  Presumptions of both worthiness and appropriateness are explicitly associated with biologically determined racial identities and groups.  In the workplace, overt racism accounted for all the top positions that white, elite males filled.  For marginalized people of color, this means unequal pay, lack of promotions, lower wages, and more insecurity in employment.  Several racial slurs come to mind, such as If you’re White, you’re right.  If you’re Black, you gotta step back.”  If you’re Brown, you gotta look down.  “ Or “The only good Injun is a dead Injun.” Through these practices and policies, the laws such as the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Affirmative Action, and the Civil Rights act of 1991 provide monetary damages for instances where employment discrimination was intentional or overt.  Also prohibited was discrimination against individuals with gender (Title VII), age (age discrimination in Employment Act of 1967), and disabilities (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). 

The unfortunate reality is that overt forms of discrimination are not a thing of the past.  Consider Ron Law’s story.  While walking into his breakroom at work, Ron Law found a noose hanging from the ceiling.  He, and other Black employers working at the Austal USA shipyard, reported finding eight nooses on the job.  They join countless other employees of color who cite racist graffiti regularly appearing in men’s restrooms.  Images of hanging men, threats targeting specific employees, and references to the Ku Klux Klan are written inside bathroom stalls, mirrors, and walls.  Law, who worked to build ships for the United States Navy, also reported hearing a White supervisor referring to Black employees as “monkeys.”  Law and 18 other employees of color took their case to the U.S. Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency investigating workers’ job discrimination complaints.  Eight years later, their case was still unresolved, so they took it to court, where they succeeded.  Of the thousands of racially discriminatory claims, only 15 percent receive any resolution or compensation.  (Animashaun 2019) 

Most discrimination that takes place in economic institutions is not overt but covert.  Most employment opportunities are not advertised in the job market, as personal networks (among both employers and employees) are utilized to fill open positions (Dickler 2009; Kaufman 2011).  Research has consistently demonstrated that candidates with ethnic-sounding first names, even among European migrants, such as Irish, Italian, German, and Polish, with “American sounding names” were more likely to have higher occupational mobility.  The only European group to benefit from non-American-sounding names were Russian Jews.   (Goldstein and Stecklov 2016) These patterns are not exclusive to the U.S. but include other English-speaking countries like the U.K. and Canada.  Those candidates with recognizably “white” or English-sounding names got more job opportunities than those who did not.  Further, new research coming out of Canada demonstrates that among equally qualified applicants, those with “Asian” names -those perceived as originating in Pakistan, India, or China - were 28 percent less likely to receive an interview than those applicants with white or “Anglo” sounding names.  (Banarjee, Reitz, and Oreopoulos 2017) These differences existed even when all candidates were educated and employed in Canada.  This is, although current research demonstrates in a wide range of industries in Canada, Latin America, the United Kingdom, and the United States that those companies with more diverse workforces perform better financially.  (Hunt, Layton, and Prince, 2015) In a massive study, researchers completed more than 83,000 applications across 108 of the largest U.S. employers.  Those applicants with Black names had a reduced probability of employer contact by 2.1 percentage points compared to White-sounding names.  The contact bias was highly concentrated, with those firms in the top quintile of racial discrimination accounting for nearly half of the racial gap.  (Kline, Rose, and Walters, 2022) 

These factors start early, as Black and Latinx youth are at a much higher risk of not getting job opportunities.  Youth employment among these groups demonstrates that disparities in outcomes lead to stagnated socioeconomic mobility throughout their lives.  Black, Hispanic, and Asian youth are employed at significantly lower rates than White youths.  And even if Black and Hispanic youth were employed, they were paid less than their White peers.  (Spievack 2019)

 

Employees of color also experience more burnout as they deal with covert forms of racism, exclusion, and marginalization.  These can take the form of covert verbal, behavioral, and environmental attacks on their physical appearance, work ethics, and integrity and are at the heart of dissatisfaction and job turnover.   Research consistently shows that covert racism in the workplace means that employees of color are constantly discussing and venting their racial frustrations with coworkers, mentally preparing to deal with anticipated racial offenses.  A 2022 study highlights how three common forms of covert racism impact job dissatisfaction and burnout.  These common forms are 1) constantly dealing with anti-Black stereotypes, especially relating to either intelligence or social skills; 2) racialized assignments that typify lower status or more work intensive (physically and mentally); and 3) interactional justice, where Black employees confront a hostile work environment essentially.  The result is creating a racially hostile work environment where Blacks are treated as second-class citizens or, in many ways, treated with contempt.  The cumulative effects of this are both burnout and lower job satisfaction.  (King et al., 2022)

Another covert mechanism operant in work settings has to do with social isolation.  A recent Cigna Work survey highlights how 37 percent of Hispanics and 3 percent of African American workers, compared to 25 percent of White workers, are more likely to feel isolated, lonely, or abandoned.  These feelings of alienation are more likely to be associated with stressful work pressures.  (Hunter-Gadsen 2020)