Jeez Louise. Could you imagine if Michelle-O made such a boneheaded gaffe!?!?
Yeah, I guess Russia is right next door to Alaska in Cindy’s World.
Filed under: Judge Joe Brown Says : "DO BETTER.", MLK is Crying Inside, Nigga Nonsense, PoliTricks as Usual, You Must Learn
Sometimes I read stories that puzzle me, sometimes I read stories that make me laugh. And then there’s stuff like this that just makes me extremely angry.
Despite record numbers of voters who turned out during the presidential primaries last spring, eight million African-Americans are still not registered to vote.
This according to Rick Wade, African-American vote director for the Obama for America presidential campaign.
“Our principle focus has been a 50-state voter registration initiative. I think we all appreciate that if we increase the number of African-American registered voters and then increase turnout and get people to the polls on Nov. 4, then Sen. Obama will be the next president of the United States,” Wade says.
Wade explains that the eight million unregistered Black voters accounts for 32 percent of eligible Black voting population nationwide. But, the Democrats are not alone in going after the Black vote. Republicans, who barely get a tenth of Black voters in presidential elections, say they are not giving up.
Note: Before anyone thinks otherwise, I am by no means saying these people should be registering to vote so that they can get Obama into the White House. I’m certainly not advocating that they register to be Democrats either, considering where I stand on that issue. I also realize that lots of whites aren’t registered either. But I’m not talking about whites, I’m talking about us.
My biggest qualm is that in an era where jobs are being shopped overseas, gas prices are out of control, school funding is down, we’re in a war approaching a decade in duration, and T-Pain is still using that damn vocoder, how could anyone willingly sit on the sidelines?
I’m not saying voting changes everything. It clearly doesn’t. But in today’s environment, how can you not care enough to simply register, let alone vote. How damn lazy and nihilistic must you be to not care about who your mayor, city council, and school board are, and what they’re doing with your tax money?
I guess this should serve as a wakeup call. If folks can’t even get interested enough in merely registering to vote (let alone actually voting) when there’s a Black man with a legitimate chance of becoming President, what hope is there for us?
I make lots of jokes here all the time, but I have to issue a serious challenge to my readers. If you know of a friend or family member who for some odd reason is still not registered to vote, help them. Forward them the link below, and lovingly hold their hands through the process. Spend a couple of minutes lovingly telling them why it’s important. Do not mention the words “Barack” or “Obama”! He is completely irrelevant. If folks don’t care to vote for their local officials, a President is going to be the least of their concerns. Worry about first things first.
If you’ve got that base covered and want some extra credit, find a local organization like a church, civic group, or frat/sorority that is actively holding a voter registration drive. Volunteer and assist.
But whatever you do, don’t just sit on your hands. I assume that all of you who read this blog are voters, and you’re voters because someone (likely your parents) at some point made sure you understood the importance of exercising your right. Someone helped you understand that our people were not given that right by the Constitution. Our people had to fight, struggle, and in many cases die for that right.[1]
Getting your ass out of bed on November 4th and waiting in line for a few minutes is a small price to pay for what our forefathers only dreamed of.
We should all be ashamed.
Ashamed enough to do something about it.
Fannie Lou Hamer is crying inside.
Question: Do you personally know someone who is eligible to vote, but not registered? Can you commit to getting these folks registered? Other than the obvious reason (nihilism) why do you think so many people have so little interest in the democratic process?
Register To Vote at ProjectVote.org
Eight Million African-Americans Still Not Registered to Vote [Seattle Medium]
[1] Go ahead and insert your own “Yaw’s Boy” joke here. I know, I walked right into that one.
Filed under: Judge Joe Brown Says : "DO BETTER.", That Sh*t Is Racist, You Must Learn
Those of you who live out West know the unique food you can only get in SoCal. I’m of course talkin’ about M&M’s Soul Food, Jack In The Crack, Carl’s Jr., FatBurger, In & Out, El Pollo Loco, and my personal favorite, Roscoe’s. Except for the Scoe’s special[1], most of this food is pure crap, but that doesn’t stop me from indulging everytime I hit the left coast, for the pure novelty if nothing else.
That said, I’m smart enough to know you can’t eat this crap everyday. Eating a reasonably well-rounded diet, in addition to exercising regularly is the key to life. So, when I see that the fine folks of Los Angeles just announced a ban on new fast-food restaurants in South Central Los Angeles, I’m wondering if this is yet another case of the gubb’ment overreaching.
A law that would bar fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least a year sailed through the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday.
The council approved the fast-food moratorium unanimously, despite complaints from representatives of McDonald’s, Carl’s Jr. and other companies, who said they were being unfairly targeted. The ban covers a 32-square-mile area for one year, with two possible six-month extensions.
The area contains about 500,000 residents, including those who live in West Adams, Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park.
The law defines fast-food restaurants as “any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers.”
A report released last year by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found 30% of children in South L.A. were obese, compared with 25% of all children in the city.
Still, several fast-food workers told the council that the panel was ignoring the good things their franchises accomplish. The workers argued that fast-food establishments provide residents with job opportunities and, in recent years, nutritious menu options.
On the surface, this doesn’t seem likely to make much of a dent in the public health crisis the LA County Health Department (which I’ve done some work for) is trying to solve. No restaurants will actually be closing, this is little more than a moratorium on the opening of new ones. So, nobody who wants the pleasure of partaking in a double cheeseburger from the McDonald’s Dollar Meal will be denied that right.
The City Council says they want to use this as the impetus for making it more attractive for more higher end grocery stores and healthier dining establishments (ie: Panera Bread, Subway, Baja Fresh, etc.) to open in the area, which I suppose is a good thing. The only problem is, most people who partake in crap at McDonald’s and Carl’s Jr. do so because the food is cheap and quick. Nutritional value is usually a distant afterthought. So simply introducing “better” options might make some different franchisees richer, but prolly won’t solve the obesity crisis either. After all, McDonald’s already has a boatload of affordable and “healthy” choices (salads, fruit, grilled chicken) itself.
The City Council seems to either be completely ignorant to, or simply sidestepping the real issue here: culture. From the cradle to the premature grave, African American culture is steeped in largely destructive habits. The legacy of “soul food” handed down from slavery still serves as the backdrop for many a family gathering. Black folks in general lead more stress-filled lives and exercise less. Many black communities lack well maintained parks and rec centers. Add this all up, and you’re facing an inter generational set of obstacles far bigger and more complex than a simple zoning ordinance.
So, while I respect the Council for trying to do something, I’m looking at them with a side eye. Some murmurs also seem to indicate a concern that this ordinance is little more than the precursor for widespread gentrification. By making the areas more attractive to higher quality establishments, they could also be setting the table for eventually pricing folks out of their homes. Anyone even remotely familiar with the bloated prices of SoCal real estate can’t help but wonder about this.
I’m just sayin’.
Nice try, LA. Now try harder.
Question: Do you think the LA City Council’s moratorium will result in healthier residents? Is this an underhanded stab at making South LA more attractive for gentrifiers? Is this institutional racism at it’s worse or are the city’s genuinely good intentions simply misguided?
Council bans new fast-food outlets in South L.A. [LA Times]
[1] Yeah, it’s an angioplasty just begging to happen, but what’s a trip to LA without some chicken and waffles?
Filed under: Judge Joe Brown Says : "DO BETTER.", That Sh*t Is Racist, You Must Learn
Those of you who live out West know the unique food you can only get in SoCal. I’m of course talkin’ about M&M’s Soul Food, Jack In The Crack, Carl’s Jr., FatBurger, In & Out, El Pollo Loco, and my personal favorite, Roscoe’s. Except for the Scoe’s special[1], most of this food is pure crap, but that doesn’t stop me from indulging everytime I hit the left coast, for the pure novelty if nothing else.
That said, I’m smart enough to know you can’t eat this crap everyday. Eating a reasonably well-rounded diet, in addition to exercising regularly is the key to life. So, when I see that the fine folks of Los Angeles just announced a ban on new fast-food restaurants in South Central Los Angeles, I’m wondering if this is yet another case of the gubb’ment overreaching.
A law that would bar fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least a year sailed through the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday.
The council approved the fast-food moratorium unanimously, despite complaints from representatives of McDonald’s, Carl’s Jr. and other companies, who said they were being unfairly targeted. The ban covers a 32-square-mile area for one year, with two possible six-month extensions.
The area contains about 500,000 residents, including those who live in West Adams, Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park.
The law defines fast-food restaurants as “any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers.”
A report released last year by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found 30% of children in South L.A. were obese, compared with 25% of all children in the city.
Still, several fast-food workers told the council that the panel was ignoring the good things their franchises accomplish. The workers argued that fast-food establishments provide residents with job opportunities and, in recent years, nutritious menu options.
On the surface, this doesn’t seem likely to make much of a dent in the public health crisis the LA County Health Department (which I’ve done some work for) is trying to solve. No restaurants will actually be closing, this is little more than a moratorium on the opening of new ones. So, nobody who wants the pleasure of partaking in a double cheeseburger from the McDonald’s Dollar Meal will be denied that right.
The City Council says they want to use this as the impetus for making it more attractive for more higher end grocery stores and healthier dining establishments (ie: Panera Bread, Subway, Baja Fresh, etc.) to open in the area, which I suppose is a good thing. The only problem is, most people who partake in crap at McDonald’s and Carl’s Jr. do so because the food is cheap and quick. Nutritional value is usually a distant afterthought. So simply introducing “better” options might make some different franchisees richer, but prolly won’t solve the obesity crisis either. After all, McDonald’s already has a boatload of affordable and “healthy” choices (salads, fruit, grilled chicken) itself.
The City Council seems to either be completely ignorant to, or simply sidestepping the real issue here: culture. From the cradle to the premature grave, African American culture is steeped in largely destructive habits. The legacy of “soul food” handed down from slavery still serves as the backdrop for many a family gathering. Black folks in general lead more stress-filled lives and exercise less. Many black communities lack well maintained parks and rec centers. Add this all up, and you’re facing an inter generational set of obstacles far bigger and more complex than a simple zoning ordinance.
So, while I respect the Council for trying to do something, I’m looking at them with a side eye. Some murmurs also seem to indicate a concern that this ordinance is little more than the precursor for widespread gentrification. By making the areas more attractive to higher quality establishments, they could also be setting the table for eventually pricing folks out of their homes. Anyone even remotely familiar with the bloated prices of SoCal real estate can’t help but wonder about this.
I’m just sayin’.
Nice try, LA. Now try harder.
Question: Do you think the LA City Council’s moratorium will result in healthier residents? Is this an underhanded stab at making South LA more attractive for gentrifiers? Is this institutional racism at it’s worse or are the city’s genuinely good intentions simply misguided?
Council bans new fast-food outlets in South L.A. [LA Times]
[1] Yeah, it’s an angioplasty just begging to happen, but what’s a trip to LA without some chicken and waffles?
Filed under: AvBro Goes To The Library, Drive-By Activism, Judge Joe Brown Says : "WELL DONE", You Must Learn
.jpg)
[I visit my public library weekly, and I’m always reading something interesting. When the book happens to be a relatively new release, I’ll give you the best review here at AB.com.]
Fatherlessness is a well-discussed issue in the Black community, but how to overcome this hurdle, and how to solve it for future generations is seldom examined in depth. Since I grew up with my father, I’ll freely admit that while this issue greatly troubles me (especially as a mentor and basketball coach), it’s not one I can entirely relate to.
Three such gentleman who can are doctors Rameck Hunt, Sampson Davis, and George Jenkins, perhaps simply better known as The Three Doctors. These brothers gained national prominence a few years ago with the release of their first jointly-authored book The Pact. I never got around to reading it, but the book was supposedly about a promise the three high school friends made with each other to collectively hold each other responsible, and jointly aim to stick together through college, en route to becoming doctors. By leaning on each other, the guys were able to escape the mean streets of Newark, NJ, and go on to Seton Hall University, and their prospective graduate schools. All three finished their doctorates on the same day, which really made the book somewhat of a storybook beginning. The Pact went on to become a New York Times bestseller, and The Three Doctors continue to be good friends and all practice medicine in various fields in New Jersey today.
The Bond more or less picks up when The Pact ended, by examining a new agreement that The Three Doctors struck with each other: to reconnect with their fathers. Told in three distinct first-person voices, The Bond allows each doctor to explain his somewhat complex childhood growing up with fathers who were involved on dramatically different levels. This isn’t some typical “Daddy was never there, I hate that bastard!” tome, however. Each man takes the time to explain both the good and bad of their relationships with their Dads, and is even honest about how the single Moms that raised them might have gotten in the way. Furthermore, the book allows the fathers themselves (with one notable exception) to explain their sides of the story. This isn’t some sob story, nor is it some clinical analysis of the paucity of Black fathers. Neither of the three doctors are psychologists, so there’s no over analyzing what’s going on. The Bond is simply three completely transparent real life stories, and some very very practical instructions on how to reconnect with a father (or child) that you may be estranged from.
Normally I’d wrap up a book review by telling you exactly whom this book is written for, but reality is, it’s just an overall good read for anyone who wants to better understand the issue of missing Black fathers. I applaud The Three Doctors for being open and honest, and putting together a compelling book with some real solutions, as opposed to simply slamming Black men who are delinquent in their parenting responsibilities. Because we all know this issue is far more complex than simply calling someone a deadbeat Dad.
The Bond wins points for trying to present a dynamic viewpoint of a very troubling issue.
Bonus: Video of The Three Doctors discussing The Bond and their fathers.
Double Bonus: The Three Doctors on The Today Show.
Question: Have you read The Pact or The Bond? What did you think?
The Three Doctors [Official Website]
Purchase The Pact or The Bond via the Amazon.com Carousel on the right.
Yep, I’m doing it. I pretty much made up my mind months ago. That’s right, I’m kissing the Democratic Party goodbye and rollin‘ dolo from now on out.
As I’ve said here repeatedly, I would probably never vote for a Republican Presidential candidate for some very real reasons (sorry Condi), but state and local races are another issue altogether. I have, and will continue to vote for County Execs, Councilmen, Mayors, etc. who represent my best interests, party affiliation be damned. Filling potholes and funding schools has very little to do with arcane philosophies on nebulous crap like “big government vs small government” and rights of gun ownership.
The Democratic Party has had my vote for quite some time. I, like many black folks, inherited this from my parents, and I don’t knock it. But once you get old enough to think for yourself and understand issues, you don’t need to keep doing something simply just because it was handed down to you.
And then there’s the small matter of the lack of regard the Dems showed Black America during the race for their candidacy in the Spring. No party bigwigs jumped in and told Hillary Clinton to fall back when the inevitable was apparent. No party bigwigs told Bill Clinton to shut his trap and quit wallowing in the abyss of racial politricks. No party bigwigs called the media out for their subliminally sexist and blatantly racist coverage. And no party bigwig intervened to put an end to that Florida and Michigan nonsense, allowing the race to drag on, robbing Obama of financial resources and only widening the gap he’d eventually have to close with Clinton supporters.
Seriously, are these the folks who are supposed to represent me? I think not. Only I can represent me. Reality is, I don’t agree with many Democratic stances on the most pressing issues, nor do I disagree with the GOP on everything. So since I’m an independent thinker, why not change my party affiliation (to unaffiliated) to reflect this?
Because as a wise man once said, “There are no permanent friends or permanent enemies in politics. Only permanent interests“.[1]
The only downside of this is that my state’s primaries are closed, which sorta cuts me out of the action in a sense. But I consider this a fair tradeoff for my freedom. Come November, the day after my man Barry makes history, I’m heading down to the Board of Elections and makin‘ it official.
Give us free!!!
I know some of you may be wondering why the wait? If I’m so insistent about this, why not send the message right now? I unfortunately had some issues with Systematic Disenfranchisement my registration when I moved recently, and this lead to some big problems when I showed up to vote during the Potomac Primaries. I can’t afford any more surprises on November 4th.
November 5th, on the other hand, is another story.
I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T!!!
Question: Are you registered as unaffiliated? What are the downsides, other than the aforementioned? Have you considered changing your party affiliation? If you are for some odd reason or another not registered to vote at all, how about changing that today by clicking here and getting it over with?
[1] Anyone know who said this?
Filed under: AvB Instant Classics, C.Y.I.N., Nigga Nonsense, Raise Your Own Damn Kids, That Sh*t Is Racist, You Must Learn
Sitting at the doctor’s office with AverageToddler the other morning, I overhead another parent trying to summon her child.
“Come here, Sha-Vaughn-Dray!!!”
I had to do a triple-take. What the heck sorta name is ShaVaughnDray? Maybe I couldn’t really comprehend the name cause you know how DC folks are with their accents and whatnot. Still, I couldn’t help but think about this poor kid and the years of misspellings and mispronunciations his bright future would likely hold. And part of me wondered why the world she couldn’t just call him Andre.
Many will argue that names don’t make the (wo)man. Others would say that names are pretty darned important. I guess I fall somewhere in the middle.
I’ve got a very, very, very common government name. It also happens to be my father’s name, but it’s pretty darned common. Over the years I’ve tried dressing it up by using different variations of it, as well as adding or dropping letters (no, seriously), but reality is the name’s the name.
And there’s nothing wrong with that of course. The name’s got history. I’m named after my Pops, and since I obviously admire him immensely, that’s always been a huge source of pride and motivation to carve my own niche in this world. My brothers (although they’re older) were named after older family members. Each of us carried our names forward, and bestowed them upon our firstborn sons. So, it’s become a roundabout family tradition, one that I’m quite proud of.
If it were up to me, I’d create a new Man Law. Every man would have to name his son after himself, no matter how inane (in my case) or outrageous (ie: that NFL player named D’Brickashaw) it may be. Because there’s just something really special about being a Jr., II, III, or in the rarest of cases, IV. Again, just my opinion.
That said, although I wouldn’t do it, I guess I understand why people name their kids things like ShaVaughnDray and D’Brickashaw. Because beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, and who the heck am I to tell someone that Marqueeshiah or Shenehneh isn’t beautiful? They could just as easily look at me and say “John” is boring and unimaginative, and is some strange way, they’d be right.
The only real downside to these somewhat crazy names would be when the child has to someday attempt to get a job. That’s where the unfortunate side-effects of gettin‘ cute with a name can come back to bite him/her in the butt. I’m sure this is hardly new-news to any member of AverageNation™ but having a “black” name can cost you when those HR folks are browsing thru resumes.
Two recent papers from the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research draw somewhat different conclusions about whether a black name is a burden. One, an analysis of the 16 million births in California between 1960 and 2000, claims it has no significant effect on how someone’s life turns out.
If nothing else, the first paper, by the NBER’s Roland Fryer and the University of Chicago’s Steven Levitt, based on California birth data, provides probably the most detailed snapshot yet of distinctive naming practices. It shows, for instance, that in recent years, more than 40 percent of black girls were given names that weren’t given to even one of the more than 100,000 white girls born in the state the same year.
The paper says black names are associated with lower socioeconomic status, but the authors don’t believe it’s the names that create an economic burden.
Using Social Security numbers, they track the changes in circumstances of women born in the early 1970s who then show up in the data in 1980s and ’90s as mothers themselves. The data also show whether those second-generation mothers have health insurance and in which Zip Codes they reside – admittedly imperfect measurements of economic achievement.
The data do appear to show that a poor woman’s daughter is more likely to be poor when she gives birth herself – but no more so because she has a distinctively black name.
So, one study says no real correlation between name and eventual outcome. But another study contradicts that to some degree.
The other, however, suggests a black-sounding name remains an impediment to getting a job. After responding to 1,300 classified ads with dummy resumes, the authors found black-sounding names were 50 percent less likely to get a callback than white-sounding names with comparable resumes.
The University of Chicago’s Marianne Bertrand and MIT’s Sendhil Mullainathan, however, appeared to find that a black-sounding name can be an impediment, in another recent NBER paper entitled “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?”
The authors took the content of 500 real resumes off online job boards and then evaluated them, as objectively as possible, for quality, using such factors as education and experience. Then they replaced the names with made-up names picked to “sound white” or “sound black” and responded to 1,300 job ads in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune last year.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Of course, no “study” is perfect, but I guess it’s some minor food for thought.
Either way, it doesn’t really matter to me. Life will prolly be harder for a black kid than a white kid in America any way you dice it, regardless of whether that kid’s named Lawrence or LacKquan. And besides, a recent study also showed that education aside, blacks who merely “sounded black” were likely to be lesser compensated than blacks who “sounded white”.
No, really.
Blacks who “sound black” earn salaries that are 10 percent lower than blacks who do not “sound black,” even after controlling for measures of intelligence, experience in the work force, and other factors that influence how much people earn. (For what it is worth, whites who “sound black” earn 6 percent lower than other whites.)
Grogger asked multiple listeners to rate each voice and assigned the voice either to a distinctly white or black category (if the listeners all tended to agree on the race), or an indistinct category if there was disagreement.
Then he put this measure of whether a voice sounded black into a regression (the standard statistical tool that economists use for estimating things), and came up with the finding that blacks who “sound black” earn almost 10 percent less, even after taking into account other factors that could influence earnings. One piece of interesting good news is that blacks who do not “sound black” earn essentially the same as whites.
So there you have it. You’re darned if you do and darned if you don’t. So name your child LayQuittria or BeYonDray all you want. Just make sure you teach them the joys of code-switching, no matter what.
Cause a name is truly a just name. But soundin‘ white is always right.
Question: Do you think a name is truly “just a name” or a self-fulfilling prophecy? Should parents give more thought to exactly what they’re calling their kids? If you have an “ethnic” government name, do you think it’s ever hurt your employment prospects? What’s the weirdest (and I’m not talkin‘ “ghetto” here) name you’ve ever personally heard?
‘Black’ Names A Resume Burden? [CBS]
How Much Does It Cost You in Wages if You “Sound Black?” [NY Times]
Previous Editions of C.Y.I.N. Case Study [AB.com]
Filed under: AvB Instant Classics, C.Y.I.N., Nigga Nonsense, Raise Your Own Damn Kids, That Sh*t Is Racist, You Must Learn
Sitting at the doctor’s office with AverageToddler the other morning, I overhead another parent trying to summon her child.
“Come here, Sha-Vaughn-Dray!!!”
I had to do a triple-take. What the heck sorta name is ShaVaughnDray? Maybe I couldn’t really comprehend the name cause you know how DC folks are with their accents and whatnot. Still, I couldn’t help but think about this poor kid and the years of misspellings and mispronunciations his bright future would likely hold. And part of me wondered why the world she couldn’t just call him Andre.
Many will argue that names don’t make the (wo)man. Others would say that names are pretty darned important. I guess I fall somewhere in the middle.
I’ve got a very, very, very common government name. It also happens to be my father’s name, but it’s pretty darned common. Over the years I’ve tried dressing it up by using different variations of it, as well as adding or dropping letters (no, seriously), but reality is the name’s the name.
And there’s nothing wrong with that of course. The name’s got history. I’m named after my Pops, and since I obviously admire him immensely, that’s always been a huge source of pride and motivation to carve my own niche in this world. My brothers (although they’re older) were named after older family members. Each of us carried our names forward, and bestowed them upon our firstborn sons. So, it’s become a roundabout family tradition, one that I’m quite proud of.
If it were up to me, I’d create a new Man Law. Every man would have to name his son after himself, no matter how inane (in my case) or outrageous (ie: that NFL player named D’Brickashaw) it may be. Because there’s just something really special about being a Jr., II, III, or in the rarest of cases, IV. Again, just my opinion.
That said, although I wouldn’t do it, I guess I understand why people name their kids things like ShaVaughnDray and D’Brickashaw. Because beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, and who the heck am I to tell someone that Marqueeshiah or Shenehneh isn’t beautiful? They could just as easily look at me and say “John” is boring and unimaginative, and is some strange way, they’d be right.
The only real downside to these somewhat crazy names would be when the child has to someday attempt to get a job. That’s where the unfortunate side-effects of gettin‘ cute with a name can come back to bite him/her in the butt. I’m sure this is hardly new-news to any member of AverageNation™ but having a “black” name can cost you when those HR folks are browsing thru resumes.
Two recent papers from the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research draw somewhat different conclusions about whether a black name is a burden. One, an analysis of the 16 million births in California between 1960 and 2000, claims it has no significant effect on how someone’s life turns out.
If nothing else, the first paper, by the NBER’s Roland Fryer and the University of Chicago’s Steven Levitt, based on California birth data, provides probably the most detailed snapshot yet of distinctive naming practices. It shows, for instance, that in recent years, more than 40 percent of black girls were given names that weren’t given to even one of the more than 100,000 white girls born in the state the same year.
The paper says black names are associated with lower socioeconomic status, but the authors don’t believe it’s the names that create an economic burden.
Using Social Security numbers, they track the changes in circumstances of women born in the early 1970s who then show up in the data in 1980s and ’90s as mothers themselves. The data also show whether those second-generation mothers have health insurance and in which Zip Codes they reside – admittedly imperfect measurements of economic achievement.
The data do appear to show that a poor woman’s daughter is more likely to be poor when she gives birth herself – but no more so because she has a distinctively black name.
So, one study says no real correlation between name and eventual outcome. But another study contradicts that to some degree.
The other, however, suggests a black-sounding name remains an impediment to getting a job. After responding to 1,300 classified ads with dummy resumes, the authors found black-sounding names were 50 percent less likely to get a callback than white-sounding names with comparable resumes.
The University of Chicago’s Marianne Bertrand and MIT’s Sendhil Mullainathan, however, appeared to find that a black-sounding name can be an impediment, in another recent NBER paper entitled “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?”
The authors took the content of 500 real resumes off online job boards and then evaluated them, as objectively as possible, for quality, using such factors as education and experience. Then they replaced the names with made-up names picked to “sound white” or “sound black” and responded to 1,300 job ads in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune last year.
White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.
Of course, no “study” is perfect, but I guess it’s some minor food for thought.
Either way, it doesn’t really matter to me. Life will prolly be harder for a black kid than a white kid in America any way you dice it, regardless of whether that kid’s named Lawrence or LacKquan. And besides, a recent study also showed that education aside, blacks who merely “sounded black” were likely to be lesser compensated than blacks who “sounded white”.
No, really.
Blacks who “sound black” earn salaries that are 10 percent lower than blacks who do not “sound black,” even after controlling for measures of intelligence, experience in the work force, and other factors that influence how much people earn. (For what it is worth, whites who “sound black” earn 6 percent lower than other whites.)
Grogger asked multiple listeners to rate each voice and assigned the voice either to a distinctly white or black category (if the listeners all tended to agree on the race), or an indistinct category if there was disagreement.
Then he put this measure of whether a voice sounded black into a regression (the standard statistical tool that economists use for estimating things), and came up with the finding that blacks who “sound black” earn almost 10 percent less, even after taking into account other factors that could influence earnings. One piece of interesting good news is that blacks who do not “sound black” earn essentially the same as whites.
So there you have it. You’re darned if you do and darned if you don’t. So name your child LayQuittria or BeYonDray all you want. Just make sure you teach them the joys of code-switching, no matter what.
Cause a name is truly a just name. But soundin‘ white is always right.
Question: Do you think a name is truly “just a name” or a self-fulfilling prophecy? Should parents give more thought to exactly what they’re calling their kids? If you have an “ethnic” government name, do you think it’s ever hurt your employment prospects? What’s the weirdest (and I’m not talkin‘ “ghetto” here) name you’ve ever personally heard?
‘Black’ Names A Resume Burden? [CBS]
How Much Does It Cost You in Wages if You “Sound Black?” [NY Times]
Previous Editions of C.Y.I.N. Case Study [AB.com]
the new averagebro blog 