#1 Student: After reading the first article, I found that there is prejudice between the connection of criminal backgrounds and the probability of receiving a job. the effect of a criminal record on white applicants was drastically lower than those of other races. Majority of white applicants received call backs, whereas black applicants didn’t. Majority of black applicants didn’t receive callbacks, or were probably placed at the bottom of the list underneath the white applicants. White males were more likely to receive callbacks then african americans, regardless of their criminal background. I think it definitely has to do with prejudice against minorities because race shouldn’t matter when asking about criminal backgrounds. If they are taking criminal background checks, the only thing that should matter is whether or not the applicant has one, not what their race is as well. Based on the second study, where they studied the connection between applicant receiving a position, and alos having an asian last name. And the results were that having an asian last name led to discrimination within callbacks for interviews. The main reason for rejection against Asian Americans is an expected language barrier, as stated in the article. Once again, I do think this disparity in callbacks has a lot to do with discrimination against Asian-Americans. Especially if the reason behind is because they assume the applicants can’t speak english, then that’s clearly racism and institutional discrimination within the work place. I think companies would realize that if people can speak english during an interview, then clearly the applicant knows the language, and a barrier shouldn’t be there. # 2 Student: "Race, Criminal Background, and Employment" Criminal records have a great negative impact on all applicants. However, these negative effects have varying degrees of impact on different races. For white applicants, the criminal record will reduce the chance of getting an interview callback by half. For black applicants, a background with a criminal record will reduce their interview callbacks rate to only nearly one-third. For both types of applicants with and without criminal records, white males have obvious advantages over African American males in receiving callbacks. For those with no criminal record, the callback rate of white males is nearly 2.5 times that of African Americans. For those with criminal records, the rate of white applicants is more than three times that of African Americans. More notably, the callback rate of whites with criminal records is three percent higher than that of African-Americans without criminal records. In other words, a white man with a criminal history has a better chance of finding a job than an innocent African American. I agree that the disparity in number of callbacks received points to prejudice against minorities. As mentioned at the end of the article, many employers have prejudices and preconceived that African Americans are likely to have a criminal record. Therefore, most employers give them fewer interview opportunities or ask more about their criminal background during the interview. Such behavior is a form of discrimination against African Americans, and I think this is a kind of institutional discrimination in employment. "Asian Last Names Lead to Fewer Job Interviews Still" Even though all other qualifications are the same, someone having an Asian last name would be 28% less likely to get callback for an interview. According to the article, there are two reasons for rejecting Asian American applicants. Firstly, although Asian Americans are also Americans, they are considered foreign nationals by their employers. Some employers, in order to allow more native-born employees among their employees, exclude these minority candidates to ensure that the company's positions are not occupied by most of the foreign nationals they think. Such discriminatory behavior is based on the idea of guaranteeing employment opportunities for nationals, but prefers to protect the employment opportunities of white people, while ignoring the employment situation of minorities. Second, employers have prejudice against Asian Americans, and just by keeping their Asian last names, the employers conclude that other colleagues cannot communicate with those Asian American applicants in English. When employers’ prejudice is common and causes them to consciously weed out applicants who may be Asian when selecting applicants, this is discrimination against Asian Americans, and it is likely to be institutional discrimination in employment.