CTV News recently reported on a BC based study in which it was found that Canadians with English names have a better chance of getting a job than do people with non-English, specifically Chinese, Pakistani, or Indian, names. CTV News reports
In fact, after sending out thousands of resumés, the study found those with an English name like Jill Wilson and John Martin received 40 per cent more interview callbacks than the identical resumés with names like Sana Khan or Lei Li.
“If employers are engaging in name-based discrimination, they may be contravening the Human Rights Act,” said the study’s author, Philip Oreopoulos, economics professor at the University of B.C. “They may also be missing out on hiring the best person for the job.”
The study also found that the only way the applicants could improve their chances of a callback was to state they had Canadian or British experience.
And before one thinks this may have something to do with acculturation or language issues some new immigrants may have, the study’s author suspects that even second and third generation immigrants are at a “significant disadvantage” if they have a Chinese, Indian or Pakistani name (great – I guess my Pakistani name is going to be trouble for me after all). However, not as much as their parents or grandparents may be. I guess, it’s all in the name.
Image via CTV.
Of course, one can see how this would be problematic for those with non-English sounding names. Employers would be engaging in discrimination of applicants based on an aspect of a person’s identity that cannot indicate an individual’s competency for the job position. An aspect linked to ethnicity. In other words – racism. In the case of this study, racism toward specific groups of people, many of whom are Muslims. The findings of this study are disturbing indeed and they demonstrate the way in which “Canadian” is defined. Those with English names – yes names originating from England (which if my memory serves me correctly is now considered a foreign country in Canada) – are categorized as “real” Canadians while those with non-English sounding names are seen as non-Canadians, as others.
To begin with, the CTV article itself creates an othering of those with non-English names. By using the terms “foreign names” or “foreign-sounding names” to refer to non-English names CTV makes the assumption that only English names are truly Canadian. Those names that are not English sounding are not Canadian – including Pakistani names. Pakistanis, along with Indians and Chinese, are therefore otherized and assumed to be foreign. Even those born and raised in Canada.
And of course, the results of the study imply a similar othering. Those with non-English names, it seems, do not appear to be Canadians and as such need not be interviewed or considered. They are considered to be “foreign” and as such are seen to be less competent than “real” Canadians (or Britons it seems). Additionally, the study also found that “Chinese resumes that had English first names increased the chances of getting a callback.” All this hints that those with non-Canadian names are not seen as acculturated or Canadian enough. Take on an English name (ie name from England) and all of a sudden you’re more Canadian?
The irony of course should not be lost on readers. English names are just that – English. They are not Canadian. They originated in England. Yet names from England, and therefore people whose roots are in England (a foreign country by the way), are viewed as Canadian. And those whose roots originate in India, Pakistan, or China are not? Additionally, can we really forget that these English names have belonged to the colonizers – those who massacred Canada’s indigenous populations and stole their land? These English names arrived in Canada via extremely violent and vicious means.
How will this discovery bode for Muslim applicants? The implications for Muslims are clear. Most Muslims in Canada have non-English names. According to what this study implies, we are seen as lesser Canadians, if Canadians at all. Our names, regardless of our citizenship and nationality, are “foreign names,” as CTV would put it. We are thus seen as not “real” Canadians. The racism inherent in such discriminatory practices, whether intentional or not, has tried to define for us our place in Canada – as foreigners.
Sobia
Krista
Jehanzeb
biqbal
azeezah
iqra
rabia7
m118
Great post. I especially like the point that English names are English, from England, not indicative of Canadianness.
It’s interesting, but I wonder what the result would be if you included Polish, Portuguese, or other Continental European names (maybe even that of the lead researcher – Oreopoulos.) I ask that as an American and frequent visitor to Toronto. From what I’ve noticed, many of these European communities in Canada are newer and less assimilated than the South and East Asian communities (particularly with regard to language.) I’m curious as to the responses they would get from employers.
I agree. That would be interesting to see. I was curious about what would have happened if the name of the lead researcher, which appears to be of Greek origin, was used. It seems this may be the first of many studies. It would be interesting to see them try different variations of the study.
“which if my memory serves me correctly is now considered a foreign country in Canada” – hah.
also, though, it was a BC study. it’d be interesting also to see what results obtained from other provinces. alberrda has a pretty large ukranian population, and it seems fairly well integrated – even though it’s pretty new.
is it inappropriate to ask whether biryani by any other name would smell as sweet?
The study was actually done for job openings located in the Greater Toronto Area.
A name like Scott McDonald, is not English, it isn’t even Scottish (Scott is not a traditional first name in the British Isles). It’s Canadian, as is a name like Mario Laframboise (a whole different story). Canada isn’t a blank canvas, its a place where, for about 140 years (from 1810 to 1950,) a English Canadian culture developed and flourished, separate from the British Isles. It’s now mixing with cultural groups from around the world, but for a long time, it was isolated.
It’s not racist to recognize and respect English-Canadian cuture, and the Canadianess of names like — well Dougie Gilmour. In fact, its insulting and rude to ignore English-Canadian settler culture.
My own name, Fakhr Bhatt, is beautiful, but I’m not going to pretend it is as rooted in Canadian history and culture as John MacDonald.
@ SteynWathcher:
A name like Scott MacDonald is Scottish. MacDonald is a Scottish name.
Names like Scott or John MacDonald are not rooted in Canadian history any more than your name. These names are the names of colonizers.
The only real Canadian names are indigenous names. The rest of us, including those who came from Western Europe, are not indigenous Canadians. Names such as MacDonald have roots in other parts of the world, not in Canada. The only way they have a history in Canada is by being invaders and colonizers. Again, if you want to call anyone “real” Canadians and actually define Canadianness, though the way that has been done has been very problematic, then it would be our indigenous peoples who are the real Canadians – not Europeans.
My name is just as rooted in Canadian history, though in very different ways, as is a MacDonald or a Laframboise.
Canada isn’t a blank canvas
precisely. and no, it’s not racist to recognize english-canadian culture. but if we do that, we need to recognize it for an imperial, colonizing force that wreaked (and continues to wreak) incredible havoc to the existing natural and cultural environment. settler society is possible only if you supersede those who lived here before.
certain names aren’t as “rooted” in anglocanadian culture, true – we can trace waves of immigration, and that sort of thing. but anglocanadian culture isn’t how the state self-represents. also, uh, to say anglocanadian culture = canadian culture is the sort of identification that describes some varieties of fascism. not sure if we want to go that route.
Sobia wrote:
John MacDonald are not rooted in Canadian history any more than your name. These names are the names of colonizers.
Sobia, Canada is a colonial settler state. The society my parents immigrated to was not Mohawk or Tsuu Tina, it was English Canadian. I spend time in Tynedinaga M.T., but they and I both agree that I’m not part of their society.
Canadian society, up to about 1950, is a society of colonizers, (which only made room for aboriginals as assimilated individuals, not as a separate nations). Scott MacDonald is a name more typical of that colonial society than Fakhr Bhatt, and I respect that.
(Again, Scott McDonald, like Mario Lemieux, are not typical European names. Please don’t try to deny the existance of English-Canadian or French-Canadian culture in North America. It’s insulting.)
The only real Canadian names are indigenous names
This is the sort of thinking used by white South Africans during apartheid to justify the dispossession of African (Bantu-speaking) South Africans. They argued that only Khoisan people were “real” South Africans, and everyone else was equally an immigrant.
I don’t think its productive to focus on what groups are truly Canadian and what is a ‘recent’ arrival. That’s the direction ot Israeli-Palestinian debate has taken (go back to 1948? 1880? 300 AD? Moses?) and the direction France has taken (defining non-white Frenchmen as second or third generation “immigrants”!).
Instead, I think it’s better to recognize that societies, cultures, and identies can all form very quickly, and age of a society is not a measure of its legitimacy.
Biqbal wrote:
we need to recognize it for an imperial, colonizing force that wreaked (and continues to wreak) incredible havoc
If you want to see it is a force of “incredible havoc” go ahead. My own view is that it was, and is, an open, accepting, and adaptive society. Either way, I think we both recognize it’s existance and accept its right to exist.
but anglocanadian culture isn’t how the state self-represents
If you re-read my comment, you’ll find I make no mention of the “state”. I’m not sure who you are responding to.
Also, this may only be a typo, but the usual, respectful term is “English-Canadian” or, “Scottish-Canadian”. anglocanadian, (not capitalized) verges on a Mark Steyn-type ethnic slur (e.g. muzzie for Muslim, etc).
Last month one of my close friends here in one of Western provinces called a manager for one of London Drugs stores to hire him as a shelf stocker. While talking to the manager on the phone, the manager showed interest and said that they had vacant positions in that area and that he will call him tomorrow for interview. After my friend gave the manager his name which was Yousef, the manager not only called him back but when Yousef repeatedly called, Derek the manager said we don’t need anyone now and please stop bugging me. My friend is very simle guy with less than grade 11 education, but he came to me and expressed his rage because he truly feels that his name was the obstacle.
Canada needs more race, ethnicity and cultural competency education.
In terms of names like Scott McDonald, Mario Lemieux, etc. being typically “Canadian” because they reflect a mix of origins or because they are not typical European names – I’m finding that a bizarre argument given that mixed ethnicities (and resulting mixed names) are common throughout the world. My own last name is the English spelling of an Irish name, and has been spelled that way since before my ancestors came to Canada. I disagree that there is something uniquely Canadian about these names, since most cultures mix and overlap enough that there are a lot of names all over Europe (and many other parts of the world) that might not be considered “typical” of the country or region where they come from.
On another note, no one is denying the existence, or even the prominence, of English-Canadian or French-Canadian cultures. I do, however, take issue with the suggestion that these cultures should be defined as the only legitimate (or the most legitimate) “Canadian” cultures, particularly since, as some of the others have pointed out, their very presence here is based on violence against and oppression of this land’s original inhabitants.
Also, the idea of English and French cultures being the only ones with long histories in Canada ignores the long presence of, for example, Chinese and South Asian Canadians, communities that have been present in Canada for over 100 years.
Kristen wrrote:
I disagree that there is something uniquely Canadian about these names, since most cultures mix and overlap enough that there are a lot of names all over Europe
Yes, mixing happens everywhere. The English-Irish mixing in the British Isles and the consequent troubles is a hallmark of that part of the world.
In the same way, the Vancouver-based band Delhi2Dublin, with its Bhangra/Celtin mix and Fiddle/Dhol instrumentation is typically Canadian . You don’t see that mix in California or Caracas.
Mixing happens everywhere, and when it happens, new hybrid, local cultures are created, including local names. Mario Lemieux is a Quebec name, and product of the isolation and mixing of cultures in the lower St.Lawrence. The fact that, on the opposite side of the world, Daniel Cohn-Bendit is also a product of a cultural fusion (French-German-Jewish) in no way makes “Super” Mario less of a uniquely local mix.
Krista also wrote
particularly since, as some of the others have pointed out, their very presence here is based on violence against and oppression of this land’s original inhabitants.
This is the third time this argument has been made on this thread, and I’m suprised. It’s exactly the same argument used by Hindutva activists when they resitrict the rights of Indian Muslims and, in the extreme case, burn Muslims alive.
The Quwat-ul-Islam mosque, made from destoyed Hindu temples, doesn’t justify the Gujurat Pogrom, or render Indian Muslim culture less Indian. In the same way, the numbered treaties and residential schools system does not delegitmate English-Canadian culture.
“It’s exactly the same argument used by Hindutva activists when they resitrict the rights of Indian Muslims and, in the extreme case, burn Muslims alive.”
It is not the same arguement at all. Here those who violently killed and stole land are now the majority and rule over everyone else. They not only murdered the initial inhabitants and stole their land, but they to this day rule that land and mistreat and oppress the original inhabitants.
When Muslims came to India, they did not kill off all the Hindus. Sure they ruled over them for a few hundred years, but they were never the majority, they did not put Hindus on reserves, and they do not rule the country today and oppress the Hindus. No doubt, there was violence that occurred but the situation in India was vastly different than what happened here. You cannot compare the two.
The actions of Hindu nationalists are closer to those of the KKK or white supremacists – the majority terrorizing the minority. Not the oppressed fighting against oppression.
Recognizing that Canada was created via violent means and that those who stole this land and killed its original inhabitants are now ruling and continue to oppress those they stole the land from, puts things in perspective. Those who gained this land via such horrific means should not be feeling as entitled to this land as they do.
And as Krista has said, no one is denying that English-Canadian culture or French culture do not exist. But these cultures should not be designated as the only Canadian cultures. And as Krista has said, South Asians and Chinese people, as well as Arabs have been in Canada for over 100 years now. When will our cultures be considered Canadian?
I don’t think its productive to focus on what groups are truly Canadian and what is a ‘recent’ arrival.
good. so (for instance) spanish-sounding names of some second-generation canadians are just as “canadian” as the russian-sounding names of fifth-generation canadians as the arabic-sounding names of third-generation canadians?
true, you didn’t mention the state. but canadian cultures (which is what we were discussing) are deeply related to state institutions and apparatuses and mechanisms.
i didn’t capitalize /anything/ (long story there) in my previous comment, so i don’t think that’s a fair bone to pick.
‘anglocanadian’ parallels ‘anglo-american’. neither word carries negative connotations.
being ‘respectful’ toward anglocanadian culture also means being responsible in how we relate to it. i don’t see how we’re being responsible – or respecting it, for that matter – if we celebrate it as being open and inclusive and ignore its past and present history of colonization and cultural imperialism.
[...] to Sobia’s What’s in a Name? Your Job! at Muslim Lookout. Posted in White People Studies. Tags: application, asian, Canada, Canadian, [...]
[...] by Guest Contributor Sobia, originally published at Muslim Lookout [...]
There was a similar study done in Australia, very recently which you might find interesting http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/
Very similar results, too.
Thank you!