Final Answer:
Blacks without criminal records had lower callback rates than whites without records and even lower rates than whites with criminal records, demonstrating significant racial disparities in employment. Additionally, the study on names revealed a bias favoring white-sounding names in hiring practices.
Step-by-step explanation:
Devah Pager's groundbreaking study in Milwaukee shed light on the pervasive racial discrimination in the employment sector. The findings demonstrated a troubling trend where black individuals without criminal records were less likely to secure employment compared to whites without criminal records or even whites with a criminal history. This challenges the common assumption that having a clean record would eliminate biases, emphasizing the deep-rooted issues of racial discrimination in the hiring process.
The study's methodology involved sending testers—individuals posing as job applicants—to respond to job ads. Pager found that whites with a criminal history were more likely to receive job offers than blacks without any criminal record. This unsettling revelation underscores the systemic racism embedded in hiring practices, even when considering individuals with similar qualifications and experiences.
Pager's study also extended to the impact of names on hiring outcomes. The research on white and black-sounding names revealed that individuals with stereotypically black names faced additional hurdles in securing job opportunities compared to those with traditionally white-sounding names. This further highlighted the existence of implicit biases and discriminatory practices in hiring, reinforcing the need for continued efforts to address and rectify racial inequalities in employment.