Gurski: Trudeau government shows it’s not serious about foreign election-meddling

Of note:

There is much to take away from all the recent analysis and counter-analysis of foreign interference in Canada’s elections — and none of it is good.

In summary, our government minimized the threat to our electoral process, admitting that while there “may” have been “some minor” efforts to sway voter intention, when all was said and done the results were not affected. (I am waiting for someone to explain how this conclusion was drawn: does the government know the reasons individual Canadians voted and the reasons for their choice of party/candidate?)

From an intelligence angle, while not much new was introduced at the Foreign Interference Commission last week, a few takeaways need re-emphasis.

1. Canada’s “intelligence culture” is worse than I feared. Politicians and senior bureaucrats do not understand, appreciate or know how to use the information provided by The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and others to help them identify threats to our national security and counteract them.

2. The prime minister does not read intelligence reports (or does he? There were mixed messages on that front) but prefers to be “orally briefed.” In theory there is nothing wrong with that as long as those doing the briefing have a background, preferably a strong operational background, in intelligence. Relying on “advisers” with no experience at the spy coalface to tell you about the nature of intelligence and its meaning is akin to asking your cousin Clem about your lung cancer rather than going to a qualified medical source. Not a great strategy.

3. Our leader arrogantly dismissed CSIS intelligence — which was provided on at least 34 (34!) occasions over the past few years — on People’s Republic of China shenanigans as “inadequate” and uninteresting. Accusations such as “it was not evidence” expose a significant ignorance of what intelligence is and is not.

No, it is not collected to an evidentiary standard (and is not normally used in court cases) but what is eventually provided to the prime minister and his team has been very carefully analyzed, corroborated, debated, checked and double-checked and is subject to intense scrutiny before it leaves the building. Is it perfect? No, nothing is.  But based on what I saw over 32 years at the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and CSIS, the product is damn good. It is as accurate as can be given the sources and the fact that investigations leading to useful intelligence are in constant motion.

Where do we go from here, then? While the inquiry did provide the average Canadian with a peek into the shadows of espionage and counter espionage, under the guise of what foreign powers are doing on our soil to harm our democracy, this commission report will be relegated to the usual filing cabinet, like the results of other inquiries. In other words, thanks for coming and testifying but there is nothing to see here, so please move along.

The other sad fact is that national security issues are rarely, if ever, important on the campaign trail. Voters care more about inflation, interest rates, the housing crisis and what can be done to help a Canadian team win the Stanley Cup (31 years and counting). What the PRC and others are doing to threaten diasporas, steal votes and seek a government that will do its bidding simply does not register. Yes, these other challenges resonate more, but if you cannot ensure a free and fair election, what does your democracy stand on?

My normally optimistic self notes that we have seen this movie before and will see it again, unless we take major steps to prevent it. We need a national security adviser with real intelligence experience, not a part-time bureaucrat. We need the prime minister to meet regularly with the heads of CSIS, CSE and the RCMP.

We need a government to take intelligence and threats seriously.

Source: Gurski: Trudeau government shows it’s not serious about foreign election-meddling

Why is this nurse working at a Toronto insurance firm? Ontario’s battle to get foreign-trained nurses into the field

Useful analysis and report:

…The report by World Education Services (WES) Canada, a non-profit organization that assesses foreign credentials, surveyed 758 internationally educated nurses not currently working as nurses in Ontario, and found that half had not begun the province’s registration process to practise, even if they wanted to. 

The respondents cited financial barriers as the top factor affecting their ability to become registered. (Registration costs, exams and testing fees can total $3,000 at the low end.) The need to show evidence of recent nursing practice, a lack of clarity around the registration process and the time it takes to get registered also played a role.

The report also said data gaps make it “nearly impossible” to track how many internationally educated nurses are in Canada, how many intend to or are trying to qualify, and how many are practising. 

“No one can tell us how many internationally educated nurses are actually out there who could potentially be working,” said Joan Atlin, strategy, policy and research director at WES Canada. “There’s still a significantly underutilized population of nurses in the province who are still falling outside of the supports.”

The pandemic has forced health officials to confront the underutilization of skills brought by immigrants meant to fill labour needs, said Atlin, who has been engaged in foreign credential issues for two decades.

The province is well aware of the issues in the report and has worked with the College of Nurses of Ontario, which regulates the profession, to help internationally educated nurses become registered. 

In 2022, the Health Ministry introduced changes, including covering the cost of exams and registration with the college, and made it easier to meet language proficiency requirements. 

Just last month, the province made permanent a program that places these nurses under an employer’s supervision to gain work experience. The college says that as of the end of March 2024, it had matched 4,230 applicants with employers, enabling 3,324 nurses to register. 

“It has created that opportunity for health-care employers to hire those who have already applied for licensure and allow nurses to meet the practice and language proficiency requirement, by actually working and having their employer attest to their ability to work in English,” said Atlin.

In total, the college says as of April 1, it had registered more than 7,500 international applicants, with 5,215 new internationally educated nurses registered in 2022 alone. …

Source: Why is this nurse working at a Toronto insurance firm? Ontario’s battle to get foreign-trained nurses into the field

Globe editorial: Substitutions and deletions, please: The absolutes of the culture wars are divisive and exhausting

Good editorial:

….So let’s stop playing those roles, or shoving others into them. Enough with the tyranny of orthodoxy and treating any disagreement as instant evidence of bad faith.

Your brain and your window on the world aren’t a no-substitutions-allowed meal kit. It’s a grocery store where you can pick up and discard what works for you. If someone doesn’t like the looks of what’s in your shopping cart, that doesn’t make you an awful cook – or a terrible human being. It just means they want something different for dinner tonight.

The underlying irony is that most of us don’t even want to play this game.

When Angus Reid asked people to pick the word they most associate with the culture wars, a clear majority of Canadians picked two words: “divisive” and “exhausting.”

Now there’s something all of us can agree on.

Source: Substitutions and deletions, please: The absolutes of the culture wars are divisive and exhausting

Jamie Sarkonak: Zealous DEI commissars threaten integrity of Canada’s medical profession

Captures the perspective and views of what a possible Conservative government thinks about DEI and what they might do with respect to employment equity:

…The next place DEI intends to colonize is the foundational set of themes that underpin physician training in Canada, the CanMEDS framework. Last revised in 2015, CanMEDS is up for renewal in 2025. The most radical change? DEI.

Doctors involved in the revision are proposing to make progressive-left values standard in physician training, including anti-racism, social justice, cultural humility, decolonization and intersectionality — all concepts coined by progressive, redistributive racialists who tend to despise western culture.

Health equity experts are all-in on this stuff, so expect the “experts say” coverage to be overwhelmingly positive. A preview is offered by Kannin Osei-Tutu, a medical professor at U of C, who recently hailed the upcoming CanMEDS revision as an “unprecedented opportunity” for transformation.

“Transformative change in medical education and practice demands explicit integration of anti-oppressive competencies,” he wrote in last month’s issue of the Canadian Medical Journal of Health (which only ever seems to publish one side of this great debate).

“Progress hinges on cultivating a critical mass of physicians committed to this change, thus paving the way for more equitable and just health care.”

Wondering where all this goes? Look to New Zealand, a fellow British colony that has taken to reconciling with extreme self-flagellatory policies. In 2023, some of the island nation’s hospitals began prioritizing Indigenous Māori and Pacific patients on elective surgery wait lists on the basis of race.

“It’s ethically challenging to treat anyone based on race, it’s their medical condition that must establish the urgency of the treatment,” one anonymous doctor told the New Zealand Herald.

Plenty more like-minded doctors exist in Canada, but they are drowned out by heavy-handed administrations that insist on turning their profession into another stage of ideological performance. Their best recourse? Their provincial ministers of health and post-secondary education, who are uniquely empowered to turn things around.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Zealous DEI commissars threaten integrity of Canada’s medical profession

Reaction in Canada to Israel-Palestine war has me feeling spiritually homeless and disconnected

Thoughtful reflections, although it would appear that the activists on the Palestinian side have been engaging in more anti-Jewish community activities than vice-versa and her social media posts are more one-sided than this commentary:

The last few months have shown me that the Israel-Palestine war has changed what diversity, inclusion and respect for freedom of speech and religion means in Canada.

Whether these changes are permanent are yet to be determined. It is a sad waiting game and I wonder if my children will grow old in the Canada that is the only home they know.

Suffice to say, two things are true: Almost all Canadians have some opinion on this war, and almost all Canadians have zero control over what is happening in Gaza right now. The same applies to what happened in Israel on Oct. 7.

Where does that leave us? Are broken professional and personal relationships salvageable? Is there any way we can find our way back to one another? Is this the actual hill that professionalism and respect for religion will die on?

Everyone (including me) says this is not a Muslim and Jewish issue. My quivering voice is losing conviction, and here is why:

The social media campaigns are stronger than ever. The protests and public outcry (on both sides) around the atrocities in the Middle East are still making headlines (and they should). People continue to remain obsessed on what qualifies as hate speech conflating freedom of expression with the same. Furious onlookers continue to call for arrests at protests, conflating the right to demonstrate freely with targeted hatred toward a group of people.

People are angry and while they cannot control what is going on there, they are trying hard to control what is happening here. 

Jewish and Muslim businesses, places of worship and neighbourhoods are being targeted. Antisemitism and Islamophobia are rapidly on the rise. Those angry about the war are only targeting members of the Muslim and Jewish communities. That makes this a Muslim and Jewish issue in a morbidly tangible sense.

Our politicians have contributed to this religious divide. Put another way, even when they whisper about respecting religious values, their actions contradict them — loudly.

In the holy month of Ramadan, certain Canadian politicians have failed to offer customary Ramadan well wishes to Canadian Muslims. They have publicly solidified their anger toward Muslim communities. Conversely, other politicians say nothing to remind Jewish communities that they cannot and should not be targeted. They have left Jewish communities feeling painfully isolated.

The silence has incensed both sides, because these politicians care far more about their voter base and less about Canadians in general. A true failure as elected officials.

In my legal community, the divide is vicious and the criticism is relentless. The professional advocates on LinkedIn have spoken and in comparison to your average Canadians, they say they know best. They hold zero sympathy for anyone who disagrees with their view and I know with certainty that some relationships of many years are over — forever.

While I have no interest in debating the politics (to what end?), I would be the first to sit with my fellow Canadians to work toward a solution on how we continue forward with respect and professionalism. This has become imminent in my view. It our right as Canadians to continue to protest, to continue to advocate and to continue to support the causes that are nearest and dearest to us.

Let us also work to repair the damage to relationships preventing us from working together, learning together and respecting one another. Without a commitment from all sides to simply pause and forgive before saying something hateful here about what is happening there, the continued erosion of our Canadianness will continue.

We can protest and disagree, but not in a way that creates hate and division for any group in Canada. This present-day Canada has me feeling spiritually homeless and disconnected. If you are a leader of any kind, take a moment and ask yourself what steps you can take to cultivate safety in your home — if in fac fact, you still consider Canada to be your home.

Muneeza Sheikh is an employment lawyer.

Source: Reaction in Canada to Israel-Palestine war has me feeling spiritually homeless and disconnected

Olive: To address housing crisis, Canada needs to lower annual immigration intake

Late to the party, almost appears that it required PM Trudeau’s a Captain Renaud “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling [high levels of immigration] is going on in here!” for Olive to argue for reduced levels (and he largely ignores the major problem, the massive increase in temporary migration):

So, we must address the demand side of the supply and demand imbalance.

Justin Trudeau has said as much. “We’ve seen a massive spike in temporary immigration,” the prime minister said in an April 2 press conference.

“(It) has grown at a rate far beyond what Canada has been able to absorb.”

And so, Ottawa has announced a 20 per cent reduction in new temporary residents — international students, temporary foreign workers and refugee claimants — over three years, to a still sizable two million.

Yet Ottawa is determined to further increase housing demand with its targets of 485,000 permanent residents in 2024, and 500,000 in each of 2025 and 2026.

That plan to add close to 1.5 million more permanent residents by 2026 follows the record population increase of 1.2 million in 2022-23.

Instead, Canada needs to lower annual immigration intake to about 300,000 permanent residents in each of the next few years. That was the level as recently as 2020.

The U.K., Australia and New Zealand, all coping with the same housing crisesas Canada after surges of newcomers, are each planning to reduce immigration levels.

Rishi Sunak, the British PM, has said U.K. immigration inflows are “far too high” after recent government reports that immigration soared to a record 745,000 in 2022.

Australia plans to cut its migrant intake by about 50 per cent over two years, after welcoming a record 510,000 immigrants in the year ending June 2023.

And New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said his country’s net immigration increase of 118,835 people in the year through September “doesn’t feel sustainable for New Zealand at all.”

U.S. immigration policy is already restrictive and would likely become more so in a second Trump presidency.

A new Canadian housing strategy would match immigration targets with realistic expectations of increased housing supply.

A meaningful reduction in newcomers for a few years would give us the chance to develop that balanced model — to determine what types of new housing we need and where to build it.

In time, we can carefully raise immigration levels again once we’re confident that newcomers and those already here will have an affordable, decent place to live.

Source: To address housing crisis, Canada needs to lower annual immigration intake

Black Canadians’ economic disadvantage is worsening – here’s how to fix it

Not convinced by the recommendations of the EE Task Force with respect to the public service given the overall representation is largely comparable and in some cases, better than other equity groups as recent disaggregated data indicates (How well is the government meeting its diversity targets? An intersectionality analysis), private sector case may be stronger:

….The roots of Black inequality may be different in Canada than those seen elsewhere. Nonetheless, no country escapes the legacy of centuries of slavery endured by Africans. Slavery existed in colonial Canada, and after it was abolished in 1834, Black people who fled American slavery by seeking freedom in Canada experienced racism here, such that the majority of them returned after the Civil War. Historical policies and practices actively put Black communities in Canada at a disadvantage.

After Caribbean immigration to Canada increased throughout the 1960s, governments refocused immigrant recruitment on Asia. This had the effect of slowing growth in the Black community. Excessive and discriminatory policing practices in the Black community produced alienation and demoralization. Recent historical research reveals that government security agencies made covert efforts to discredit Black activism, further destabilizing community life. Black men were subjected to heightened scrutiny and exclusion. This environment exacerbated Black Canadians’ employment problems.

The worsening trend of Black disadvantage must be addressed. Reversing it will require new thinking and action at all levels of government and society. The federal government only recently started to move beyond traditional approaches of addressing the challenges faced by racialized minorities to recognize the extraordinary disadvantage facing Black Canadians.

Recently, the federal government promised to include Black workers as a distinct employment equity group. This is a positive step, but it is only a step, and so far, only a promise. In 2020, a Black class-action lawsuit against the federal government alleging systemic employment discrimination in the Public Service of Canada not only proposed the creation of a separate Black employment equity category, it also recommended establishing a Black Equity Commission to develop measures and co-ordinate efforts, and setting up an external reporting mechanism for discrimination complaints. These and many other sensible measures were contained in the report of the federal Employment Equity Act Review Task Force released in December. They are needed to counter Black employment exclusion, and the government should not resist the changes that the report recommends.

Provincial authorities must also act. In Ontario, employment equity was scrapped amid concerns of “race quotas,” but federal experience shows this fear is baseless. Meanwhile, opportunities have been lost.

Support for Black communities must extend beyond tokenism to include meaningful investments in education, job skills training, and community development. By acknowledging and rectifying historical injustices, we can uphold the ideals of multiculturalism and ensure the Canadian dream is achievable for all.

Rupa Banerjee is Canada Research Chair and associate professor of human resource management and organizational behaviour at Toronto Metropolitan University.

Wendell Nii Laryea Adjetey is William Dawson Chair and assistant professor of post-Reconstruction U.S. and African Diaspora history at McGill University.

Jeffrey G. Reitz is professor emeritus of sociology, and R.F. Harney Professor Emeritus of Ethnic, Immigration and Pluralism Studies, at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto.

Source: Black Canadians’ economic disadvantage is worsening – here’s how to fix it

Five Key Facts About Black Immigrants’ Experiences in the United States

Interesting analysis. Would be interesting to compare Black immigrants with native African Americans (others may have done):

Black immigrants are a growing share of the country’s population and make up 8% of all immigrants. Nearly half (47%) of Black immigrants in the U.S. are from the Caribbean, while about four in ten (43%) are from sub-Saharan Africa, with smaller shares coming from South America and Europe (3% from both regions). Most Black immigrants are U.S. citizens (68%), while one in five (21%) has a valid visa or green card and about one in ten (8%) is likely undocumented. Like immigrants overall, Black immigrants come to the U.S. seeking more opportunities for themselves and their children, and most report improved educational opportunities, employment, and financial situations as a result of moving to the U.S. However, Black immigrants report disproportionate levels of unfair treatment and discrimination in their workplaces, communities, and when seeking health care, reflecting the intersectional impacts of racism and anti-immigrant sentiment. Below are five key facts about their experiences, drawing on the 2023 KFF/LA Times Survey of Immigrants, with its sample size of 3,358 immigrant adults (18 and older), including 274 Black immigrant adults.

Three in four (76%) Black immigrants are working, and most say their situations are improved as a result of coming to the U.S.

Like immigrants overall, the primary reasons Black immigrants say they came to the U.S. are for better economic and job opportunities (87%), better educational opportunities (81%), and a better future for their children (80%), and most say that moving to the U.S. has made them better off in terms of educational opportunities for themselves and their children (85%), their financial situation (74%), and their employment situation (74%). About two thirds (65%) also say they are better off in terms of their safety (Figure 1).

Black immigrants face disproportionate financial challenges, including in paying for health care.

About four in ten (44%) Black immigrants have lower incomes (household income less than $40,000 per year), reflecting that most employed Black immigrants are working for hourly pay (69%). Reflecting these lower incomes, half (50%) of Black immigrants say they or someone in their household had trouble paying for at least one basic necessity in the past 12 months, including rent/mortgage, food, health, health care, or utilities or other bills, about twice the share of White (27%) and Asian immigrants (20%) who say the same (Figure 2). Specifically, three in ten (30%) Black immigrants report that their household had problems paying for health care in the past 12 months compared to about one in six White immigrants (17%) and about one in eight Asian immigrants (12%).

Most (56%) employed Black immigrants say they have faced at least one form of discrimination or unfair treatment at work asked about in the survey.

A majority of employed Black immigrants (56%) report experiencing at least one type of discrimination or form of unfair treatment at work, similar to the share of employed Hispanic immigrants who report this (55%), and higher than the shares of employed Asian (44%) and White immigrants (31%) who report the same. Among employed Black immigrants, about half (47%) say they were given fewer opportunities for promotions or raises than people born in the U.S., three in ten (31%) say they were paid less than people born in the U.S. for doing the same job, a quarter (25%) say that they had worse shifts or less control over their work hours or than people born in the U.S., and about one in five say they were not paid for all of the hours that they worked or not given overtime pay (22%) or were harassed or threatened by someone at their place of work because they were an immigrant (22%) (Figure 3). Beyond experiences with mistreatment, about one in three (34%) Black immigrants with less than a college education say they are overqualified for their job, saying that they have more skills and education than the job requires, with this share rising to about half (53%) of those with a college degree or higher.

Black immigrants report disproportionate levels of unfair treatment in social and police interactions.

Most (55%) Black immigrants say they have experienced worse treatment than people born in the U.S. in at least one of the following places: a store or restaurant, in interactions with the police, or when buying or renting a home, higher than the shares who report this among Hispanic (42%), Asian (36%), or White immigrants (22%). Specifically, about four in ten (38%) Black immigrants report experiencing worse treatment in police interactions, about a third (35%) report this in a store or restaurant, and about a quarter (26%) report worse treatment when buying or renting a home (Figure 4). Moreover, roughly one in three (34%) Black immigrants say they have been criticized for speaking a language other than English, and about four in ten (45%) say they have been told they should “go back to where you came from,” higher than the share of Hispanic (34%), Asian (32%), or White (25%) immigrants who report this experience.

Among those who have received health care in the U.S., Black immigrants are more likely than other immigrant groups to report being treated unfairly by a health care provider.

About four in ten (38%) Black immigrants who have received or tried to receive health care in the U.S. report being treated differently or unfairly by a health care provider, higher than the shares of Hispanic (28%), Asian (21%), and White immigrants (18%) who say this. The share of Black immigrants who report unfair treatment by a health care provider includes about a quarter (25%) who say they were treated unfairly because of their race, ethnic background, or skin color, 23% who say they were mistreated because of their health insurance or ability to pay, and about one in six (16%) who say that they were treated differently due to their accent or ability to speak English (Figure 5).

Source: Five Key Facts About Black Immigrants’ Experiences in the United States

Armstrong: A Likely Story: The “Diversity” Myth Consumes the Canadian Literary Scene

Of note:

….I am not calling for contracts, publicity and awards to be given out on a demographically proportional basis. Women buy more books than men, so it’s no surprise if more women want to write and there’s no injustice in the industry catering to women’s interests when it comes to signing and promoting authors. The experience of being in a racial or cultural minority might be more likely to inspire people to become writers – witness the flowering of American Jewish literature in the 20th century. The desire to write and the talent to do it very well make for a rare combination and we can’t expect that combination to show up by quota. Maybe the “disproportionate” results I see are purely innocent, based on the merit of authors and the demands of the marketplace.

Except that they are accompanied by countless indicators of a literary culture that is working to create much more disproportionate results in the future, once all those current beneficiaries of race-based emerging writer awards and mentorships are ready to move into positions of literary leadership. If literary gatekeepers – the publishers, editors, conference organizers and the like behind those exclusionary measures I referred to above – are going to use race-based criteria to bar the majority of the nation’s population from many of their programs and publications, there had better be compelling evidence to justify those measures.

But the success of BIPOC writers over the last two or three decades, and especially in the last five years, suggests that these extraordinary measures are not justified. Remember, books promoted between 2018 and 2020 were written and landed publishing deals before the affirmative action initiatives I listed above, and yet BIPOC writers already managed to be moderately over-represented in Canadian literary circles. (And that some of these measures target women generally because they’ve been excluded from Canadian literature is so preposterous as to be laughable.)

If you look up Canadian writers online, increasingly you find that they define themselves immediately in racial terms, whether they are black or white, Asian or Indigenous or any combination. Often, the writer will include a health diagnosis of some sort, especially in cases where there’s no other potential affirmative action hook.

But far from easing off the affirmative action, the people piloting the good ship CanLit are pushing the throttle harder. Jesse Wente, “chairperson” of the Canada Council, in an interview with the Toronto Star called the institution he headed a “colonial” organization and described his mission as reducing the harm it causes to Indigenous, black and other communities. Given that this is the man who campaigned to destroy the career of author Hal Niedzviecki over an awkwardly worded call for writers to bridge cultures (the so-called Appropriation Prize kerfuffle of 2017), we can guess what this might mean.

In my own province of Manitoba, the government-funded arts council recently announced a new set of “strategic priorities” focused on equity, diversity, reconciliation and projects that “build communities.” The money quote in this document: “Refine program assessment criteria that favour a Eurocentric concept of excellence to instead focus on impact.”

What could possibly be done when so many publishers, agents, editors, academics, prominent authors and funding bodies are pushing harder than ever for identity-based affirmative action? A change in the federal government, which seems likely, might bring in new leadership at Canadian Heritage and the Canada Council that is less sympathetic to race-based program criteria. So the next federal election may put the brakes on some of these measures.

Perhaps more significantly, though, we may be able to count on boredom and frustration among readers and writers who are tiring of literature becoming a mere subsidiary branch of the greater social justice movement. How many Canadian Percival Everetts are there who are just as tired of trauma narratives as the protagonist of American Fiction? And how many book buyers have grown tired of being told again and again that equity and diversity are good and racism is bad?

It will be, admittedly, a steep and long mountain to climb. If you look up Canadian writers online, increasingly you find that they define themselves immediately in racial terms, whether they are black or white, Asian or Indigenous or any combination. Often, the writer will include a health diagnosis of some sort, especially in cases where there’s no other potential affirmative action hook: “Jane Smith is a settler of mixed Finnish and Irish ancestry living with long Covid and bipolar disorder on the unceded lands of the Anishinaabe.” Perhaps a culture that encourages writers to view themselves as individuals first and group members second would be more likely to produce the kind of exciting, unpredictable literature that encourages readers to shell out cash and turn the page.

Bob Armstrong is a Winnipeg-based novelist. His last novel, Prodigies, was published in the United States by Five Star/Gale after Canadian publishers and agents turned it down, going on to win the 2021 Margaret Laurence Award for Fiction. Armstrong previously wrote a weekly book news column for the Winnipeg Free Press for 12 years.

Source: A Likely Story: The “Diversity” Myth Consumes the Canadian Literary Scene

What Researchers Discovered When They Sent 80,000 Fake Résumés to U.S. Jobs

Not that surprising and mirrors earlier Canadian studies (Can we avoid bias in hiring practices?):

A group of economists recently performed an experiment on around 100 of the largest companies in the country, applying for jobs using made-up résumés with equivalent qualifications but different personal characteristics. They changed applicants’ names to suggest that they were white or Black, and male or female — Latisha or Amy, Lamar or Adam.

On Monday, they released the names of the companies. On average, they found, employers contacted the presumed white applicants 9.5 percent more often than the presumed Black applicants.

Yet this practice varied significantly by firm and industry. One-fifth of the companies — many of them retailers or car dealers — were responsible for nearly half of the gap in callbacks to white and Black applicants.

Two companies favored white applicants over Black applicants significantly more than others. They were AutoNation, a used car retailer, which contacted presumed white applicants 43 percent more often, and Genuine Parts Company, which sells auto parts including under the NAPA brand, and called presumed white candidates 33 percent more often.

In a statement, Heather Ross, a spokeswoman for Genuine Parts, said, “We are always evaluating our practices to ensure inclusivity and break down barriers, and we will continue to do so.” AutoNation did not respond to a request for comment.

Known as an audit study, the experiment was the largest of its kind in the United States: The researchers sent 80,000 résumés to 10,000 jobs from 2019 to 2021. The results demonstrate how entrenched employment discrimination is in parts of the U.S. labor market — and the extent to which Black workers start behind in certain industries.

“I am not in the least bit surprised,” said Daiquiri Steele, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama School of Law who previously worked for the Department of Labor on employment discrimination. “If you’re having trouble breaking in, the biggest issue is the ripple effect it has. It affects your wages and the economy of your community going forward.”

Some companies showed no difference in how they treated applications from people assumed to be white or Black. Their human resources practices — and one policy in particular (more on that later) — offer guidance for how companies can avoid biased decisions in the hiring process.

A lack of racial bias was more common in certain industries: food stores, including Kroger; food products, including Mondelez; freight and transport, including FedEx and Ryder; and wholesale, including Sysco and McLane Company.

“We want to bring people’s attention not only to the fact that racism is real, sexism is real, some are discriminating, but also that it’s possible to do better, and there’s something to be learned from those that have been doing a good job,” said Patrick Kline, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, who conducted the study with Evan K. Rose at the University of Chicago and Christopher R. Walters at Berkeley.

The researchers first published details of their experiment in 2021, but without naming the companies. The new paper, which is set to run in the American Economic Review, names the companies and explains the methodology developed to group them by their performance, while accounting for statistical noise.

Source: What Researchers Discovered When They Sent 80,000 Fake Résumés to U.S. Jobs