Per Christianity Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/june/workplace-employment-religious-discrimination-research.html (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/june/workplace-employment-religious-discrimination-research.html)
How one experiment with 9,600 résumés showed that religious discrimination is alive and well.
By Bradley R. E. Wright;
As a Christian and social researcher, I have heard many stories over the years of religious discrimination in the workplace. Some are compelling and troubling, others are trivial and frivolous. And it seems like the workplace climate may be getting worse: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) considered 3,721 religious discrimination complaints in 2013, up from 1,709 in 1997.
But the EEOC drops about four in ten of those complaints—a figure that's remarkably stable across religions. One big reason is that discrimination can be surprisingly difficult to prove. If a member of a social group is treated badly, is it because of their social group? Was he laid off because his boss was tired of giving him Sundays off? Was she reassigned because customers were wary of being served by a Muslim in a headscarf? Were they discriminated against, or do bad things just happen?
I started wondering: How bad is religious discrimination in America, really? Horror stories abound. But are they examples of a systemic problem, or a few bad actors? Do some groups have it worse than others?
My colleague Michael Wallace and I conducted a large-scale field study to test for religious discrimination in one area of public life: the job application process. We found that not only is religious discrimination alive and well, it is so strong that simply adding one word to a résumé—a reference to a particular religion—reduced employer callbacks by almost 40 percent.
What 9,600 Résumés Reveal
We started by creating four résumés, each one describing a fictitious job applicant who had just graduated from college. Two of the applicants were men, two were women. Their names had no obvious ethnic or religious connection. They had roughly similar work experience, with various part-time and summer jobs, and each was involved in extracurricular activities during college—including a student religious group. This is where we made it an experiment: We randomly changed the religious group listed on the résumés.
For example, one résumé listed the applicant as the former president of the "University ____ Student Group." Another listed the applicant as the treasurer of the "University _____ Association." We filled the blanks with one of eight terms. Five of the terms referred to existing religions: "Catholic," "Evangelical Christian," "Jewish," "Muslim," and "Pagan." The sixth term referenced a fictitious religion, the "Wallonian" religious group. (Wallonia is a region of Belgium, not a religion. We did this to test if employers discriminate against a religion that doesn't even exist.) A seventh term was "Atheist," which signaled a rejection of all religions. The eighth term was our control group. Here we simply omitted the blank, thus referencing a generic student group (e.g., the University Student Group). This provided a group against which we could compare the first seven groups.
After we created the résumés, we went looking for employers. Using a popular job-search website, we identified 2,400 job listings that we thought would be suitable for someone graduating from college—entry-level jobs in a range of industries. We applied to jobs located in New England and the South. (We thought there might be regional variation in how employers responded to religion, but both regions turned up similar results.)
For each job listing, we sent four résumés, one from each of our fictitious job applicants. However, before we sent the résumés, we randomly selected which experimental terms to put on each. So for example, for one job, the first applicant might note having been in a Jewish student group, but for the next job listing, it was a Catholic group. All together, we sent out 9,600 résumés.
Employers could respond to the résumés by phone, by e-mail, or not at all. (Each of the four fictitious job applicants had separate phone numbers and e-mail addresses, so employers didn't know that the applications were from the same source.) We counted how many times employers responded to the résumés as a function of which student religious group was listed. If no religious discrimination existed, employers would have responded about equally often to the résumés, regardless of the religious group listed.
Unfortunately, that's not what happened. Not even close.
The control group résumés were the clear winner. Résumés that made no religious reference, that listed a generic student group, received about 20 phone calls and e-mails from employers for every 100 résumés sent. This was 20 percent more callbacks than the average of the other seven groups.
The Muslim résumés were the big loser. Résumés that listed involvement in a Muslim student group received only 12.6 phone calls and e-mails from employers for every 100 sent. This was about 40 percent fewer callbacks than the control group résumés. Simply adding Muslim to a résumé decreased employer interest substantially.
The remaining six groups fell in between the control group and Muslims. Among them, the pagan résumés did relatively well, the atheist résumés did relatively poorly, and Jews, evangelicals, Catholics, and Wallonians were in the middle. (Our New England findings were published in the journal Research in Social Stratification and Mobility in 2013; our Southern research was published recently in Social Currents.)
So yes, religious discrimination in hiring seems to be very, very real. Our study seems to confirm a social norm in America: that religious expression should be compartmentalized and private, something kept at home or brought out only in specific, limited circumstances. Publically identifying oneself with a certain belief system can be a faux pas with real and negative consequences. This norm applies to a wide range of religious and irreligious expressions. As such, both the proselytizing evangelical and the adamant atheist are suspect.
If we're concerned about discrimination and want to encourage religious freedom in a secular society, it won't be the evangelical Christian number that we most lament.
Many Christians intuitively sense this norm. We feel that we should be discreet, if not silent, about our faith. This creates a tension, because Scripture presents our faith as good news to be shared, as light to be shown, as salt to be tasted—not a hobby to be hidden. Negotiating this tension between the demands of society and the teachings of Christ is a fascinating, critical aspect of the Christian practice.
But if we're really concerned about religious discrimination and want to encourage religious freedom in a secular society, it won't be the evangelical Christian number that we most lament. The anti-Muslim discrimination we found is both dismaying and probably understated. If we had used names with a Muslim or Arabic association, we likely would have observed even greater discrimination. Furthermore, some employers probably didn't notice the word Muslim (or any of the experimental terms), so its true impact would be even greater than we measured.
Love Your Muslim Coworker
I anticipate that in the coming years, our awareness of Islamophobia will increase considerably. And it should. Diminishing the life opportunities of anyone due solely to their religious affiliation runs counter to religious freedom. It presents an interesting opportunity for Christians. In our study, we collected no information about the employers themselves, so we don't know if Christian employers are more or less likely to discriminate by religion. Still, it's probably safe to assume that churchgoing Christian employers are among those who discriminate, and that there's a discipleship opportunity here to teach why Christians want religious freedom for Muslims, atheists, and even the nonexistent Wallonians.
It's not just because we want to protect religious freedom for ourselves alone. It's because religious freedom is at the heart of Christianity. We believe that at creation, God gave humans the freedom to choose what and how they would worship. Jesus is reconciling all things to himself, but not through force or coercion. We weren't saved to make special deals for fellow believers but to bless the entire world. Christianity shines bright when it is looking out for the interests of the socially marginalized, and our research suggests that American Muslims are the most marginalized in hiring.
Leaving "Evangelical Christian Association" off our résumés would be one clear example of hiding our light under a bushel. But so would be looking the other way when our Muslim neighbors are treated unfairly.
Bradley R. E. Wright is a sociologist at the University of Connecticut. He blogs at BrewRight.com about social research and spiritual growth, and tweets @bradley_wright. This article was originally published online May 22.
Does this research also cover those that have never got the job because they werent christian?
Quote from: Rob68 on June 19, 2014, 11:15:22 PM
Does this research also cover those that have never got the job because they werent christian?
Yes, it covers Muslim, Atheism and they even made up a bogus religion to validate the research. (Wallonian)
Ummm, this study is fishing. Any job application should be completely devoid of religious, political, or other taboo IRRELEVANT references. Instead of listing president of a "religious" student group, just say president of a student group with x # members and a budget that increased by x% over tenure, etc etc.
If I were hiring manager, I'd be terrified of resumes that felt the need to reference religion or politics. The last kind of employee I want is someone who might be bringing those references/influences into the work place, offending other workers, or just being obnoxiously political/religious in general.
Duh
Also, know thy audience??? Perhaps if you are applying to a Christian/Jewish/Muslim non-profit, this would be applicable. If you are applying to a large corporation, then think of it as a public school. Unless it's Hobby Lobby or Chik Fil A where the culture is obviously religious, particularly Christian, in nature. Applying to JP Morgan and listing out religious crap or President of College Repubs/Democrats will get you blacklisted before you even apply (unless it's not through corporate process and you know the guy looking at resumes was political of a certain nature or religious of a certain nature and can handle seeing it on a resume).
In my field, it's usually not too hard to find out if the person managing the hiring process went to your alma mater college/grad school, and/or what fraternity/organization they were in, if they like to play golf or sail, etc etc. Then you can list *that* kind of stuff on your resume to appeal to them a bit more. Part of interviewing is doing your research. Someone who blindly lists out their religious affiliation deserves to have their resume crumpled into a ball and used for Trash H.O.R.S.E. in the office.
I REALLY did not like that article, but considering the source...
As he says, Wright's research was published in Research in Social Stratification and Mobility and Social Currents, which are both academic journals. You can read it here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0276562413000413
http://scu.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/20/2329496514524541.full.pdf
Wright's a sociologist and pretty impressively published. This Christianity Today article just represents his take on what it all means for his audience there, though he's clear it has potential consequences for people of all religions and non-religious identities.
I expect this kind of discrimination would especially affect young people who don't yet have a lot of job experience, where their work with their church or organizations makes up a lot of their applicable experience. Among people who weren't just handed every possible advantage in education and employment, this is likely a sizable proportion.
Not wise. If you put anything polarizing on your resume -- Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Liberal, Pro-choice, NRA, women's empowerment, marriage equality, tea party -- you run the very real risk of alienating somebody involved with the hiring process. This post could probably also be titled "Your Political Affiliation Might Cost You Your Next Job" or "Your Social Views Might Cost You Your Next Job" if people are stupid enough to reference these on a professional resume. To take what Simms mentioned a little bit further, if I was a hiring manager, I would be terrified to even call someone in for a first interview who referenced something like this on their resume. Employment Discrimination lawsuits are soaring across the country, and the last thing you need is to choose someone else and then have to face questions as to whether or not religion (or race, or age, or any of other variables that employers do not want to see on resumes) played a factor in your decision. Stick with your professional qualifications on your resume, save the superfluous religious and political blurbs for your Match.com and Facebook profiles.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 20, 2014, 08:57:49 AM
I expect this kind of discrimination would especially affect young people who don't yet have a lot of job experience, where their work with their church or organizations makes up a lot of their applicable experience. Among people who weren't just handed every possible advantage in education and employment, this is likely a sizable proportion.
What do you mean by this? Some people have no choice but to list out all of their religious accomplishments? Others were fed excellent educational AND employment opportunities while still <22 and in school and so they have it made without trying? That's a little disingenuous. Hopefully your whole life hasn't revolved around your religion by the time you turn 22 and anyone can craft a Starbucks job to sound like something was accomplished.
Also if your whole life up until 22 is Catholic Charities or something like that, perhaps you should be applying to a Catholic non-profit if there is absolutely nothing else you can put on your resume. Your fault if you spent a quarter of your life setting yourself up for one specific path and at the last minute decide not to go that route.
If your school isn't helping you craft a good resume and finding internships or summer associate jobs or other stuff to put on your resume to vary it a little from president of Muslim Students at UCF or wherever, then maybe Google can help you. Honestly, it has helped me A LOT when others haven't.
I get the research, but I just can't believe that people still have to be told that putting religion all of your resume as your sole experience in life or top experience in life will not make you desirable for a lot of companies, and then people have a problem when they do learn it. Freedom of religion goes both ways! It means you can put it all over your resume, but it also means, as with political references, employers can forgo your resume for someone else's.
They'll never be able to "prove" religious discrimination, because it's hard not just go with someone else's resume who's is better. It's the same reason you're not forced to send in a picture of yourself or disclose your race or sexuality when you apply. They want to see the meat of your resume so that all have an equal opportunity no matter who they are. Listing out religious references could imply to the employer that you define yourself more by your religion than what you actually accomplish or do, no matter how menial.
^The research isn't about "superfluous religious blurbs", it's about any reference that suggests religion whatsoever, even when it's potentially relevant experience. "President/Secretary/Treasurer of xxx Association" is something anyone would put on their resume, especially if it's directly related to the job, and especially if they didn't have a lot of work experience. But according to this research, it may bite them.
Say you're applying for an entry level account assistant position. You're young, you don't have much previous work experience in accounts or a fancy degree, but you've been the treasurer for your church/mosque/synagogue/Wallonian nemeton's youth group for three years. That's directly related experience showing you can handle numbers and do this work. Should you have to leave it off your resume?
I have a friend who works a back-office position for First Baptist Church. She's not Baptist or a church member, it's just where she works. She couldn't possibly leave that off her resume, but if this research is correct, she's probably already at a disadvantage were she to apply for other jobs.
I had an acquaintance who applied for an internship at the Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org/]. They specifically warned her that she would be perceived as gay by future employers if she got the internship and then used it on her résumé in the future.
^And in that case, discrimination against her would not even be illegal.
I have it under my volunteer section on my resume, doesn't seem to have hurt. Then again, I don't bring that stuff into the workplace.
^ Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning discrimination, but rather commenting on the reality of modern hiring practices. When applicants are screened, employers consider both the applicant's education/experience and how they believe said applicant would fit into their existing corporate culture. Right or wrong, any bullet point on a resume that is potentially divisive or signals a strong polarizing position could potentially hurt an applicants chances and should be considered carefully before being included. In your example above, I would absolutely list the First Baptist Church treasury experience. It might be potentially off-putting to some, but at the very least, it's directly applicable to the account assistant position that he or she is applying for and would likely strengthen her resume more than it would hurt it. To me, though, President of Christian/Muslim/Pagan/Pro-choice Student Group just isn't the smartest thing to include. It suggests a radical viewpoint potentially disruptive to the workplace, regardless of whether or not that's truly the case. In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter, but pragmatically, it's not wise. If it makes or breaks your resume, there has to be a way to describe your role without directly mentioning the religion.
Quote from: fsquid on June 20, 2014, 02:07:44 PM
I have it under my volunteer section on my resume, doesn't seem to have hurt. Then again, I don't bring that stuff into the workplace.
But how would they know you 'don't bring that stuff into the workplace' unless they hired you first?
Quote from: simms3 on June 20, 2014, 01:18:38 AM
Ummm, this study is fishing. Any job application should be completely devoid of religious, political, or other taboo IRRELEVANT references. Instead of listing president of a "religious" student group, just say president of a student group with x # members and a budget that increased by x% over tenure, etc etc.
If I were hiring manager, I'd be terrified of resumes that felt the need to reference religion or politics. The last kind of employee I want is someone who might be bringing those references/influences into the work place, offending other workers, or just being obnoxiously political/religious in general.
Duh
How dense are you?
The entire purpose of their exercise was to see if there was any correlation of hiring discrimination based upon publicly claiming to be part of a religion or not. We can
discuss argue the merit of their numbers all we want, but you can't exactly test for religious discrimination without adding a religion, real or otherwise.
If you were a hiring manager and one of those applicants was jaded enough about not getting a call back when several of their peers, with similar experience, did. And that applicant then brings the issue to the table - legally; and then after it's proven that you, as a hiring manager, have a history of not hiring people who list a religion on their resumes, then guess who's ass is in a sling?
I'll give you a hint, it won't be the president of the Baptist Club.
I do agree there are a lot of cases out there for all types of discrimination. Political and religious being the top ones. That being said I have actually seen it happen without even noticing until well after the incident happened. In California there was a kid who I helped get into a paralegal program. Most of the people got jobs after the class ended however all the females were already hired before the class ever ended. I drove this kid to about 8 interviews until he came out once and told me that the lawyer told him that he would be looking for a while as most attorney`s want the women in the office over the men. He found a job about a year later with a female attorney.
I have also seen a few religious people of different associations be passed on jobs they were clearly qualified for, but they were similar to the story in the article where their resume revolved around the church they attended.
I do think it is wrong to descriminate regardless of any factor, however from a business standpoint I get their point of view by not wanting to appear affilitated to certain groups, parties or causes. But the bottom line is it still isn't right to descriminate period.
It would seem that there are two sides to this coin:
Growing coalition presses Obama to end policy on religious discrimination in hiring
BY ADELLE M. BANKS | RELIGION NEWS SERVICE June 20 at 2:51 PM
WASHINGTON — A widening coalition of critics is urging the Obama administration to drop the practice of permitting religious groups to hire and fire based on a person's faith when they receive federal money, saying Obama is reneging on a promise he made in 2008 to change that policy.
Ninety organizations wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder after discovering a new Department of Justice document that details rules on prohibiting discrimination by grant recipients as part of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.
The 11-page FAQ document, issued in April and citing a 2007 DOJ memo issued by the Bush administration, says faith-based organizations "may prefer co-religionists for employees in programs funded by covered grants" if they meet certain criteria.
Signatories to the June 10 letter said the Bush-era memo from the Office of Legal Counsel should be withdrawn because it "threatens core civil rights and religious freedom protections" in the Justice Department and other federal agencies. They say the memo undermines new nondiscrimination language in the Violence Against Women Act.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/growing-coalition-presses-obama-to-end-policy-on-religious-discrimination-in-hiring/2014/06/20/d7cb1a18-f8ab-11e3-af55-076a4c5f20a0_story.html
It's 2014 and humans still believe in things they can't see/touch/hear/feel & for which no evidence exists....
Sounds like civilization is on the right track!
(Sorry, had to)
No, you really didn't. At any rate, it's worth pointing out that the studies found atheists came out worse than any other group besides Muslims.
Quote from: ben says on June 21, 2014, 03:48:42 PM
It's 2014 and humans still believe in things they can't see/touch/hear/feel & for which no evidence exists....
Didn't Ellie Araway have the same problem in the movie "Contact"?
Quote from: ben says on June 21, 2014, 03:48:42 PM
It's 2014 and humans still believe in things they can't see/touch/hear/feel & for which no evidence exists....
Sounds like civilization is on the right track!
(Sorry, had to)
And like many others here, with your cumulative knowledge of the universe you are willing to disregard thousands of years of wisdom. Because you, the ultimate example of human existence, can't understand it, religion must be the imagination of others.
ar·ro·gance noun \ˈer-ə-gən(t)s, ˈa-rə-\
: an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people
what a preposterous stance. Just because people believe it, doesn't make it wise or real, it just makes it a dogma. The greatest attribute of humans is that we can learn from ours mistakes. It's pretty freaking arrogant to thing you belong to a club of eternal salvation simply because your invisible guiding force seems more real to you than someone else's invisible guiding force. (http://i.imgur.com/8OchvM7.jpg)
Quote from: NotNow on June 21, 2014, 04:23:44 PM
Quote from: ben says on June 21, 2014, 03:48:42 PM
It's 2014 and humans still believe in things they can't see/touch/hear/feel & for which no evidence exists....
Sounds like civilization is on the right track!
(Sorry, had to)
And like many others here, with your cumulative knowledge of the universe you are willing to disregard thousands of years of wisdom. Because you, the ultimate example of human existence, can't understand it, religion must be the imagination of others.
ar·ro·gance noun \ˈer-ə-gən(t)s, ˈa-rə-\
: an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people
Quote from: Demosthenes on June 21, 2014, 05:21:35 PM
what a preposterous stance. Just because people believe it, doesn't make it wise or real, it just makes it a dogma. The greatest attribute of humans is that we can learn from ours mistakes. It's pretty freaking arrogant to thing you belong to a club of eternal salvation simply because your invisible guiding force seems more real to you than someone else's invisible guiding force. (http://i.imgur.com/8OchvM7.jpg)Quote from: NotNow on June 21, 2014, 04:23:44 PM
Quote from: ben says on June 21, 2014, 03:48:42 PM
It's 2014 and humans still believe in things they can't see/touch/hear/feel & for which no evidence exists....
Sounds like civilization is on the right track!
(Sorry, had to)
And like many others here, with your cumulative knowledge of the universe you are willing to disregard thousands of years of wisdom. Because you, the ultimate example of human existence, can't understand it, religion must be the imagination of others.
ar·ro·gance noun \ˈer-ə-gən(t)s, ˈa-rə-\
: an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people
+1111010101010000000
Quote from: ben says on June 21, 2014, 05:50:11 PM
Quote from: Demosthenes on June 21, 2014, 05:21:35 PM
what a preposterous stance. Just because people believe it, doesn't make it wise or real, it just makes it a dogma. The greatest attribute of humans is that we can learn from ours mistakes. It's pretty freaking arrogant to thing you belong to a club of eternal salvation simply because your invisible guiding force seems more real to you than someone else's invisible guiding force. (http://i.imgur.com/8OchvM7.jpg)Quote from: NotNow on June 21, 2014, 04:23:44 PM
Quote from: ben says on June 21, 2014, 03:48:42 PM
It's 2014 and humans still believe in things they can't see/touch/hear/feel & for which no evidence exists....
Sounds like civilization is on the right track!
(Sorry, had to)
And like many others here, with your cumulative knowledge of the universe you are willing to disregard thousands of years of wisdom. Because you, the ultimate example of human existence, can't understand it, religion must be the imagination of others.
ar·ro·gance noun \ˈer-ə-gən(t)s, ˈa-rə-\
: an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people
+1111010101010000000
It is preposterous to believe that you can propose or denounce the answers to questions that are beyond our ability to solve. Your "pronouncements of scientific fact" are based on the same type of malleable foundation of knowledge that produced a flat Earth theory and leech therapy. Our own state of advancement is unknown to us as we have no guide to go by, other than our own history. The religions that you so easily deride are based on this history. You also completely ignore the personal experiences of many people, simply because you have not had any religious experience yourself.
Miracles (incidents that have no scientific explanation) happen all the time. Your guess is that these are the product of unknown factors and chance. To others, this is evidence of the power of prayer and the hand of God. Who are you or I to insist on our perception as the only "right" one?
Quote from: stephendare on June 21, 2014, 05:05:07 PM
Quote from: ben says on June 21, 2014, 03:48:42 PM
It's 2014 and humans still believe in things they can't see/touch/hear/feel & for which no evidence exists....
Sounds like civilization is on the right track!
(Sorry, had to)
Don't you think that this is our greatest (and perhaps our only) strength as a species?
Don't be absurd. Certainly not.
Quote from: stephendare on June 22, 2014, 03:06:12 AM
Quote from: Demosthenes on June 21, 2014, 05:21:35 PM
The greatest attribute of humans is that we can learn from ours mistakes.
You have to admit though, we don't seem to be very good at this.
Agree. If anything, we tend to repeat
exactly the same mistakes over and over. Except the scale, thanks to technology, tends to get larger and larger each time. Not a good trend.
Quote from: stephendare on June 22, 2014, 03:06:12 AM
Quote from: Demosthenes on June 21, 2014, 05:21:35 PM
The greatest attribute of humans is that we can learn from ours mistakes.
You have to admit though, we don't seem to be very good at this.
Ha! I think we can agree on this.