<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Checking the Box	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://contemporaryracism.org/3126/checking-the-box/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://contemporaryracism.org/3126/checking-the-box/</link>
	<description>An academic blog about whiteness, implicit bias, and systemic racism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 02:06:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Hannah Weinstein		</title>
		<link>https://contemporaryracism.org/3126/checking-the-box/comment-page-1/#comment-719</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hannah Weinstein]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 02:06:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contemporaryracism.org/?p=3126#comment-719</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[On the one hand, I think that it is important to know if applicants have been convicted of a crime, but it is also important for the company to know the severity of the crime as well. Maybe there could be other questions on applications to specify what type/severity of the crime? Would this be problematic as well? 
This makes me think of having to have a state issued photo ID to vote. This is designed to disadvantage people who are of a lower socioeconomic status who cannot pay or have a way to obtain a photo ID. A group of people who are constantly at this disadvantage are people of color. As we discussed in class, people of color are constantly pushed back by the law that purposely puts them on an unequal playing field.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the one hand, I think that it is important to know if applicants have been convicted of a crime, but it is also important for the company to know the severity of the crime as well. Maybe there could be other questions on applications to specify what type/severity of the crime? Would this be problematic as well?<br />
This makes me think of having to have a state issued photo ID to vote. This is designed to disadvantage people who are of a lower socioeconomic status who cannot pay or have a way to obtain a photo ID. A group of people who are constantly at this disadvantage are people of color. As we discussed in class, people of color are constantly pushed back by the law that purposely puts them on an unequal playing field.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Steven Feldman		</title>
		<link>https://contemporaryracism.org/3126/checking-the-box/comment-page-1/#comment-703</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steven Feldman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 May 2016 19:49:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contemporaryracism.org/?p=3126#comment-703</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m also not sure that getting rid of the question is the best solution, only because I feel like companies should know if they are hiring people who have committed serious crimes. However, I think it should be based on company policy to further discuss the felony with the applicant, rather than discarding them immediately. In an interview, the applicant would be able to explain their crime. Perhaps the company would realize that there is no actual threat to hiring the applicant because maybe they were only in prison because of a racialized judicial system. This would allow for the company to not hire a murderer but still hire someone who maybe got time for illegally using marijuana. But even still, this solution requires the company/interviewers to be open-minded and put aside their preconceived notions about crime (something I don&#039;t think most companies can do right now). I&#039;m not really sure. This was really thought-provoking though!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m also not sure that getting rid of the question is the best solution, only because I feel like companies should know if they are hiring people who have committed serious crimes. However, I think it should be based on company policy to further discuss the felony with the applicant, rather than discarding them immediately. In an interview, the applicant would be able to explain their crime. Perhaps the company would realize that there is no actual threat to hiring the applicant because maybe they were only in prison because of a racialized judicial system. This would allow for the company to not hire a murderer but still hire someone who maybe got time for illegally using marijuana. But even still, this solution requires the company/interviewers to be open-minded and put aside their preconceived notions about crime (something I don&#8217;t think most companies can do right now). I&#8217;m not really sure. This was really thought-provoking though!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Lindsay Auerbach		</title>
		<link>https://contemporaryracism.org/3126/checking-the-box/comment-page-1/#comment-698</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lindsay Auerbach]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2016 20:22:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contemporaryracism.org/?p=3126#comment-698</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Interesting topic.  I think that you&#039;re right in that those boxes are a perfect example of a small way that the system continuously works against people of color, especially in terms of employment.  I&#039;m not sure if eliminating the question entirely from applications is the answer.  I think the more important factor is the person that reads the application and that person&#039;s level of knowledge surrounding topics of race.  If a person of color has a criminal record, the forces working against them must be considered in the hiring process, and if they&#039;re not (which is often the case), that&#039;s the big problem.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting topic.  I think that you&#8217;re right in that those boxes are a perfect example of a small way that the system continuously works against people of color, especially in terms of employment.  I&#8217;m not sure if eliminating the question entirely from applications is the answer.  I think the more important factor is the person that reads the application and that person&#8217;s level of knowledge surrounding topics of race.  If a person of color has a criminal record, the forces working against them must be considered in the hiring process, and if they&#8217;re not (which is often the case), that&#8217;s the big problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jen Beck		</title>
		<link>https://contemporaryracism.org/3126/checking-the-box/comment-page-1/#comment-690</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jen Beck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:40:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://contemporaryracism.org/?p=3126#comment-690</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[There&#039;s a potential disconnect here. I think that when people are imagining that people that have to check the box, they&#039;re thinking of murderers, and violent people, when in reality, the people who are having to check the box are people who were arrested on lesser crimes, such as drug crimes, who aren&#039;t a danger to people in the way that others imagine.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s a potential disconnect here. I think that when people are imagining that people that have to check the box, they&#8217;re thinking of murderers, and violent people, when in reality, the people who are having to check the box are people who were arrested on lesser crimes, such as drug crimes, who aren&#8217;t a danger to people in the way that others imagine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
