Are you saying you need to change your last name from Chinese to "whiteish" in order to get an interview?
Nah, just first name. My old Chinese name wasn't quirky spelling or hard to pronounce, but it was non-English looking obviously. Surnames come in all kind of shapes & sizes, nobody makes a fuss about that.
Understood now. However, it was your reference to "Singh" and "Chen" that made me curious, because they are surnames, if I am not mistaken.
what's wrong with Fox? Mulder, I heard you call 610 one day and you even told them your name was Mulder. I knew it was you because you mentioned the site. Don't worry, they won't cut you off if your name sounds ghetto.
No. I'm with you. "Welch" sounds like a fat girl; clearing her throat. Tejada sounds like a sexy latina chick.
But if the fact stems from racism, then how would changing to a "white" name help? If the black person changed his name from Shaquille to John and got more interviews and calls as "John", well, they're going to find out that "John" is not white but black at some point and the racism will still be there to hinder him.
I think the issue is more with people that have black sounding names never getting a call back at all. At least John would have the chance to prove himself during an interview and if he was qualified, he would get the job. While on the otherhand, Shaquille wouldn't be given that chance in the first place.
It sucked for Sirius Black, first he was accused of killing some of his best friends, then he went to jail in "do me in the" Azkaban, all probably because of his black sounding name. Then his godson was afraid to death of him and then he got himself killed by a rich white woman. res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. If he was Sirius White, no way would he have had those problems.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/17/nyregion/17baby.html "In the last several years, New York City has had more baby girls named Fatoumata than Lisa, more Aaliyahs than Melissas, more Chayas than Christinas. There have been more baby boys named Moshe than Peter, more Miguels than Jeffreys, more Ahmeds than Stanleys." My money says Fatoumata, Aaliyah, and Moshe will not get the call.
I don't know if I have a disadvantage or not due to my Chinese name. However, I've never had any problem in getting into good schools and then getting good jobs. I actually feel that I have an advantage because many Chinese are doing well in science and technology.
The question that comes to mind is, assuming a "Black-sounding" name as everybody here seems to define it does hurt your career, would an African sounding name do the same? If not (which I don't think is the case) then the problem isn't purely racial, but rather cultural or class-based. I think the problem is that Black-American & poor too often intersect, and poor & uneducated too often intersect. Uneducated people don't make great employees. The answer, it would seem to me, would be to concentrate on the poor and educated aspects so that the problems don't intersect with race and therefore ethnic sounding names.
historically. . . up until 1865. . black folx really did not have much say in their naming conventions then once release they went with what names they knew. . . . considering they were completely and totally cut off from their original heritage in fact . . .they were hurt or killed for trying to practice or keep that heritage the 60's was a reclaiming of some of that heritage that may have been more of a divorcing from the heritage that was force upon them just a thought Rocket River
Interesting article, and although not a 'Black name', it's very relevant to the topic. I would be interested to know if Hispanic-Americans have a similar experience or not; I've already heard from Asian/Afro-Americans regarding this, would be interested to hear from anyone else who has gone through a similar experience. In this case, the employer apparently felt that it was 'good for business' to force the man to adopt a 'White name'. http://www.nixonpeabody.com/publications_detail3.asp?Type=P&PAID=4&ID=1066 What’s in a Name? Ninth Circuit Disagrees with Shakespeare Shakespeare didn’t think names were important. The Ninth Circuit, however, disagrees with the Bard. by John Canoni. August 02, 2005 Shakespeare didn't think names were important. In Romeo and Juliet, he observed “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” The Ninth Circuit, however, disagrees with the Bard. In El-Hakem v. BJY, Inc.,[1] the court upheld a jury verdict against an engineering firm CEO who insisted on calling an Arab employee, Mamdouh El-Hakem, “Manny” and “Hank” despite El-Hakem’s strenuous objections over a period of almost a year. The CEO, Gregg Young, asserted a “Western” name would “increase El-Hakem’s chances for success and would be more acceptable to BJY’s clientele.” When El-Hakem objected to being called “Manny” instead of his first name, Mamdouh, and suggested Young call him by his last name, El-Hakem, Young instead switched to another “Western” name, “Hank.” The jury found Young's conduct created a hostile work environment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this finding, noting that, while Young's conduct “may not have been especially severe,” it was frequent and pervasive. The harassment stopped only when BJY closed the office where El-Hakem worked. BJY argued these facts did not make out a proper Section 1981 claim because neither “Manny” nor “Hank” were racial epithets. The court swiftly dismissed that defense, pointing to the 1987 Supreme Court decision in Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji,[2] where the Court held Section 1981 also covered “persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics.” Names are important, the Ninth Circuit held (“a group’s ethnic characteristics encompass more than its members’ skin color and physical traits”). The court could have cited literary authority that disagreed with Shakespeare (e.g., “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names,” Chinese proverb, and “A good name is better than precious ointment,” Ecclesiastes 7.1). Young’s persistent harassment was costly. The jury awarded El-Hakem $15,000 in compensatory damages, $15,000 in punitive damages, and an undisclosed amount in attorney’s fees. BJY got off lightly because the trial court (following a five-day trial) failed to give the jury a vicarious liability instruction. While the district court later amended the judgment to impose vicarious liability on BJY, the jury would likely have awarded much higher punitive damages against the company than the $15,000 they awarded against Young, then the only defendant before them. This case reminds us that actionable harassment can be either severe or pervasive and that simply treating an employee differently than his/her coworkers can precipitate a discrimination case. What may appear to be trivial to some (such as Gregg Young, for example) can nonetheless lead to liability against both the individual executive and the company. Antiharassment training needs to reach the Gregg Youngs of the world. Trainers should definitely quote the Ninth Circuit, not Shakespeare.
