Objectivity norms can act as a source of mistrust of marginalized voices within organizations. In this paper, we study White evaluators' perceptions of Black applicants' objectivity and hireability in a field where objectivity is considered imperative: journalism. We predicted that Black journalists will be viewed as less objective and as having more ingroup bias regarding racial issues coverage compared to White journalists. Importantly, we expected these patterns to emerge in opposition to hiring judgments that would, overall, favor Black journalists over White journalists for roles reporting on racial issues due to perceptions of their racial expertise. Meta-analyses of three samples (N = 1725) found that White perceivers rated Black journalists as less objective and more biased, yet more racially expert and hireable, than White journalists. In follow up correlational analysis we found consistent evidence that perceptions of racial expertise positively impact hiring judgments for Black journalists even as perceptions of objectivity suppress hiring preferences. Overall, these studies illuminate the costs of racial marginalization in primarily-White workplaces, even when there are apparent hiring advantages, and demonstrate potential barriers to inclusion and accurate racial issues coverage.

客观性规范可能成为组织内边缘化声音不信任的根源。在本文中，我们研究了白人评估者对黑人申请人的客观性和可雇用性的看法，在客观性被认为是必要的领域：新闻业。我们预测，与白人记者相比，黑人记者将被视为不太客观，并且在种族问题报道方面存在更多的内部群体偏见。重要的是，我们预计这些模式的出现将与招聘判断相反，因为总体而言，由于对黑人记者种族专业知识的看法，黑人记者在报道种族问题时会比白人记者更受青睐。三个样本的荟萃分析（N = 1725）发现，白人感知者认为黑人记者比白人记者更不客观、更有偏见，但在种族问题上更专业、更值得雇用。在后续的相关分析中，我们发现了一致的证据，表明对种族专业知识的看法对黑人记者的招聘判断产生积极影响，即使对客观性的看法抑制了招聘偏好。总体而言，这些研究阐明了以白人为主的工作场所中种族边缘化的成本，即使存在明显的招聘优势，并表明了包容性和准确的种族问题报道的潜在障碍。