Judging on Merit or on Skin Tone?
After learning about the "doll test" on Sunday, I came across a release of study results today that also delves into the topic of skin colour and the characteristics the general public equates with that colour. They both point to the very real need for more work to be done in making people aware of the prejudices that surround skin tone.
The study I refer to is one done by Matthew Harrison, a doctoral student at the University of Georgia, and his faculty supervisor, Kecia Thomas, a professor of applied psychology and acting director of UGA's Institute for African American Studies. The results indicate that the darker a person's skin tone is, the greater the disadvantage will be when that person applies for a job. The study was designed specifically to investigate the effects of "colourism" in hiring and the workplace.
Participants in the study were asked to rate resumes that came with photographs of the theoretical job applicant, a man or a woman, whose skin was either dark, medium, or light. Harrison found that the light-skinned applicant with less education was generally preferred over the darker-skinned, more well-educated applicant, especially if the applicant was male.
Harrison offers the daunting explanation that "expectations of the light-skinned black male are much higher, and he doesn't appear as 'menacing' as the darker-skinned male applicant."
Menacing? What are we talking about here? Do people think he will show up at the workplace armed with a machete, as though he were the archetypal bad-guy from a movie about the Kikuyu Land Freedom Army? Do they picture themselves as Victor Mature in the movie "Safari", striving singlehandedly to save the ranks of white employees from the murderous MauMau lurking behind the water cooler? Truly, society is in need of an awareness campaign.
Harrison's study exposes the reality of a skin-tone preference at play in job applicant selection. He theorizes it may be due to the "common belief that fair-skinned blacks probably have more similarities with whites than do dark-skinned blacks, which in turn makes whites feel more comfortable around them."
More comfortable? What is this about? Why should it be of any significance at all whether or not the whites are comfy-womfy? Is there a suggestion here that the greatest comfort level for the whites would be achieved by putting the black women in maid's attire and the black men in livery? Certainly that would make their presence on the job site more easily understandable by all as the non-menacing hirelings the whites could snap their fingers at when they were thirsty, or wanted a go-fer job done.
Society, says Harrison, "equates lighter skin with attractiveness, intelligence, competency and likeability". No shit, Sherlock.
The question we need to ask now is not why, but when? When are we going to stop just tsk-tsking over results like those found by Harrison and Kiri Davis? When are we going to get off our societal fat-ass and start doing something about it?
The study I refer to is one done by Matthew Harrison, a doctoral student at the University of Georgia, and his faculty supervisor, Kecia Thomas, a professor of applied psychology and acting director of UGA's Institute for African American Studies. The results indicate that the darker a person's skin tone is, the greater the disadvantage will be when that person applies for a job. The study was designed specifically to investigate the effects of "colourism" in hiring and the workplace.
Participants in the study were asked to rate resumes that came with photographs of the theoretical job applicant, a man or a woman, whose skin was either dark, medium, or light. Harrison found that the light-skinned applicant with less education was generally preferred over the darker-skinned, more well-educated applicant, especially if the applicant was male.
Harrison offers the daunting explanation that "expectations of the light-skinned black male are much higher, and he doesn't appear as 'menacing' as the darker-skinned male applicant."
Menacing? What are we talking about here? Do people think he will show up at the workplace armed with a machete, as though he were the archetypal bad-guy from a movie about the Kikuyu Land Freedom Army? Do they picture themselves as Victor Mature in the movie "Safari", striving singlehandedly to save the ranks of white employees from the murderous MauMau lurking behind the water cooler? Truly, society is in need of an awareness campaign.
Harrison's study exposes the reality of a skin-tone preference at play in job applicant selection. He theorizes it may be due to the "common belief that fair-skinned blacks probably have more similarities with whites than do dark-skinned blacks, which in turn makes whites feel more comfortable around them."
More comfortable? What is this about? Why should it be of any significance at all whether or not the whites are comfy-womfy? Is there a suggestion here that the greatest comfort level for the whites would be achieved by putting the black women in maid's attire and the black men in livery? Certainly that would make their presence on the job site more easily understandable by all as the non-menacing hirelings the whites could snap their fingers at when they were thirsty, or wanted a go-fer job done.
Society, says Harrison, "equates lighter skin with attractiveness, intelligence, competency and likeability". No shit, Sherlock.
The question we need to ask now is not why, but when? When are we going to stop just tsk-tsking over results like those found by Harrison and Kiri Davis? When are we going to get off our societal fat-ass and start doing something about it?
1 Comments:
What would be very interesting is to see a similar study done, expanded to include other visible minorities. I'd like to know how other races are perceived. I think in general, you'd find that the perceptions of blacks would not similarly translate to other minorities. I'm willing to guess that Mexicans would not be trusted, but Asians may be given a break.
More people need to see the movie Crash
Post a Comment
<< Home