I am hesitant to wade in here. I am not asserting anything about the actual study, but just observing this thread.
You seem to be ignoring the earlier statistical complaint by the other poster. They are implying a null hypothesis where names signal socioeconomic status and discrimination may be on that status rather than race.
To test for this, you cannot start with unequally characterized populations (black and white) and compare equally popular names from each population. You need to first stratify by socioeconomic status and then draw popular names from equivalent sub-populations. E.g. equally popular black and white names among babies born to households with lowest quintile income and high school as the parents' terminal degrees; equally popular black and white names among babies born to households of middle quintile income and 4-year college degrees; etc.
I don't think it's even relevant. Hiring practices that are based on class discrimination but result in racial discrimination can still be racist even if that isn't their intent.
But more to the point, racial discrimination has been replicated by many studies constructed in different ways. A famous 1978 study found discrimination when sending equivalent resumes that had a headshot of either a white or black person attached. Other studies have looked at including extracurricular activities that imply a certain race.
Yes, but this sort of gotcha study is missing the fact that any merit-based system will discriminate against minorities that are not given a proper education.
Explicitly filtering by race is bad. However, if it leads to the same outcome as filtering by qualifications, then forcing people to switch hiring practices doesn’t actually improve anything.
The blame shouldn’t be on the hiring process, but instead (at least in the US) by the politicians that have set up our cities and schools to be systematically racist.
(I still think this is a bad SCOTUS ruling, to be clear.)
You seem to be ignoring the earlier statistical complaint by the other poster. They are implying a null hypothesis where names signal socioeconomic status and discrimination may be on that status rather than race.
To test for this, you cannot start with unequally characterized populations (black and white) and compare equally popular names from each population. You need to first stratify by socioeconomic status and then draw popular names from equivalent sub-populations. E.g. equally popular black and white names among babies born to households with lowest quintile income and high school as the parents' terminal degrees; equally popular black and white names among babies born to households of middle quintile income and 4-year college degrees; etc.