Stereotyped perceptions pervade the hiring process.  A major one, reinforced by a 2011 study of hiring managers, is that African-American job candidates are less likely to pass a drug test.  An older study (from 1995) found that African-American youth overestimate their drug usage compared to other races. Still another factor pushing the stereotype is the fact that law enforcement behaviors, from stop-and-frisk to actual arrests, occur more frequently and are more reported in African-American communities.

However, a 2012 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that no one race consumes more illicit drugs than other races.

Drug testing became a requirement for many federal contractors in the late 1980s. In 1987, President Reagan signed an executive order requiring that federal agencies adopt testing to establish “drug free workplaces.” The 1988 Drug Free Workplace Act went further, requiring that federal contractors adopt comprehensive anti-drug policies. This action brought drug testing into the private sector.

Many companies use a drug test as a post-offer requirement before onboarding. Many people, including many hiring managers, consider it “common knowledge” that African-Americans are more negatively impacted by this test.  

That is a wrong perception.  A study by Abigail K. Wozniak from the University of Notre Dame entitled “Discrimination and the Effects of Drug Testing on Black Employment” found a positive impact on black hiring. Dr. Wozniak believes that the rise of employer drug testing has probably benefited African-Americans by enabling non-drug using blacks to prove their status to employers.

Her study reviewed states with pro-testing laws, those with anti-testing laws and those with no such laws.  Dr. Wozniak found that pro-testing legislation increases the share of low-skilled black men working in high testing industries by 7-10% relative to all states without such a law, and by up to 30% relative to states with anti-testing laws. She also found that wages for low-skilled African-American men increase by 3-4% relative to states with no pro-testing laws and by 12% relative to anti-testing states. A factor in this latter result is that employment shifts into larger firms and industries that test and drive average wages higher.

Dr. Wozniak concludes that the research shows—contrary to what many might expect—that since the 1980s, drug testing by employers has helped African-Americans make inroads into industries that test. Testing has improved blacks’ access to jobs in large firms that pay higher wages with better benefits.

What this means for HR is quite apparent and yet quite difficult to implement.  Simply put, recruiters and hiring managers must put aside their own preconceptions when hiring. To illustrate, a classic 2003 study by professors at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology and the University of Chicago Graduate school of Business found that Caucasian-sounding names were more likely to get responses to job applications than Black or African-American-sounding names. 

The study is entitled "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?” Researchers mailed 5,000 resumes in response to job ads in newspapers. Four resumes were sent for each job posting. Two were well-qualified resumes, one each with a “black-” and “white-sounding” name, and two lesser qualified resumes, again one each for black and white. Names were chosen after a review of birth certificates. “White” names included Kristen, Greg, Neil, Emily, Brett, Anne, and Jill. “Black” names included Kareem, Tamika, Rasheed, Ebony, Aisha, and Tyrone. The study found that employers were 50% percent more likely to call candidates with white-sounding names for interviews. Moreover, the study found that the callbacks to the better-credentialed group differed significantly by race. For “white” names, higher quality resumes elicited 30% more callbacks. 

The issue still exists today. Everyone agrees that job seekers should not have to sanitize their resumes to be more likely considered for a position. But HR people are human, too. They have to be cognizant of their own biases, and they have to carefully train hiring managers to recognize their biases, and monitor their practices in the hiring process. 

Source: Abigail K. Wozniak, University of Notre Dame, “Discrimination and the Effects of Drug Testing on Black Employment” (2014),  IMDiversity 11/19/12, Texas Theory Wiki, Quartz 5/16/14