As anti-discrimination laws became more widespread, there was a justifiable hope that discrimination in hiring would gradually wither away, especially when set alongside social norms that were slowly rejecting racism and showcasing the virtues of diversity.
Unfortunately, research from Northwestern shows that this hasn’t really been the case. Indeed, when the researchers tracked hiring discrimination according to four ethnic minority and racial groups over the past several decades, they found a pretty consistent picture across six countries in Western Europe and North America.
Persistant discrimination
The study showed an increase in discrimination towards ethnic groups from the Middle East and North Africa (predominantly Muslim-majority countries) following the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
France used to have the highest level of discrimination among the studied countries, but it has since converged towards the level of other Western European nations.
There was evidence of a general rise in discrimination across all groups over time in the Netherlands, with a slight upward trend in several countries. This increase may be linked to the growth of far-right politics and negative sentiment towards non-white immigrants.
A generational change
The researchers believe we might see improvements as a result of changing generational attitudes, however. Social surveys indicate a shift in attitudes across generations. In the 1970s, older generations had more conservative views on race compared to today.
As these individuals have retired, however, the change in attitudes has not been as significant as expected. The youngest generation, particularly those who have been exposed to the Black Lives Matter movement, seem to have different views on race and ethnicity. However, it remains uncertain how much this will impact hiring discrimination.
There is evidence that the implementation of anti-discrimination laws in the US in the 60s and 70s had a positive impact, due to both enforcement and the end of open forms of discrimination. For instance, before the early 60s, job advertisements routinely specified the preferred race of applicants.
In other countries, the process was more gradual, sometimes due to a lack of enforcement and sometimes due to a different definition of discrimination. Some countries prohibited speech and acts that expressed negative opinions of different groups, but not unequal treatment that constitutes hiring discrimination.
Lackluster change
It is disappointing that the changes have not been more noticeable, however. The European Union introduced racial equality directives in the 2000s, which required all member countries to pass laws against discrimination in various areas of life, including hiring, and established standards for enforcing these laws.
The Northwestern research, and previous studies, found no significant impact from the directive. It is disappointing that legislation has not had a bigger effect, but the US experience in the 60s and 70s shows that legislation can have a meaningful impact with proper enforcement.
The authors believe that policies that mandate employers to record and publicly disclose the race or ethnicity of their hires make sense as they can prompt companies to examine their own hiring practices. Large companies, in particular, understand that a preference for white candidates may result in negative publicity and discrimination lawsuits.
There is evidence that mentoring programs can be effective, particularly in terms of promotions within companies. The impact of diversity training is less clear, as studies have not yet produced strong evidence for or against it. What appears crystal clear is that meaningful change is very hard to deliver, but that shouldn’t stop us trying to make the working world a fairer place.
