Hacker News Reader

One meta-analysis of studies, for example, found that "discrimination against blacks was more likely to occur when potential helpers had more opportunities to rationalize decisions not to help" by invoking "justifiable explanations having nothing to do with race."

Isn't this saying that when people had reasons to make a decision not based on race, they actually did make a decision based on race. How can you actually produce that conclusion?

View on HN

No, it's suggesting that, for example, when interviewing a black and a white candidate, each of whom has a reference letter and a set of test scores, the interviewer would favour test scores if the white candidate had higher test scores, but would favour reference letters when the black candidate had higher test scores. If only test scores or only reference letters were available, they'd hire based on merit.

In other words, people engaged in discriminatory behaviour when there was a way to rationalize/cover it up, and pretend they weren't doing it -- possibly telling themselves that, too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com