A new study from Chika Okafor, assistant professor of law at Northwestern University, has found people from racial minority groups receive disproportionately fewer economic and social benefits simply because their social group is smaller – a phenomenon Dr. Okafor refers to as “social network discrimination.”
For his study, Dr. Okafor sought out to investigate the argument that colorblind policies promote merit in the workplace. In an examination of firms that hire both via referrals and are race-blind or colorblind in their hiring processes, he developed an employment model showing that despite initial equality in ability, employment, wages, and network structure, people from underrepresented racial backgrounds receive fewer jobs through referrals and lower expected wages because of social network discrimination.
This social network discrimination occurs because people tend to form social connections with others who have similar backgrounds. And as these groups are smaller in overall size, people from minority backgrounds simply do not have as many peers to connect with, resulting in smaller overall social networks than people from racial majority groups.
“Much of the arguments we have heard for decades promote the view that colorblind policies inherently promote individual merit and move us closer to a meritocracy,” said Dr. Okafor. “My mathematical findings show that even if we hypothetically lived in a seemingly utopian world where everyone was starting off on equal footing and there were colorblind policies, minorities would still face disadvantages in social and economic opportunities over time because of social network dynamics arising from their group size being smaller. My findings do not only relate to hiring, but to any setting in which social networks matter — from company boardrooms to college classrooms. This complicates the commonplace narrative for colorblind polices.”
Dr. Okafor joined the Northwestern Priztzker School of Law faculty earlier this year. A scholar of law, economics, and inequality, he is also affiliated with the economics department, the Kellogg School of Management, and the Institute for Policy Research. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Stanford University, a juris doctorate from Yale Law School, and a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University.
I find it downright AMAZING we have these Third World country African and Caribbean immigrants within a US context trying to assess White American racism. Okafor’s research is not new by any stretch along with falling short. It appears the Third World country Nigeria professor is a dishonest broker because he uses these ambiguous terms “racial minority groups” when in fact he’s solely concerned about the outcomes of African and Caribbean immigrants. In other words, when Okafor’s brethren aspire to be a “colorless people” along with being within a close proximity to Whiteness and then they get REMINDED who they are.
As a result, these African and Caribbean immigrants are utterly shocked and irreparably harmed. Then THEY wonder why native-born Black Americans don’t unite with them. Last, I just Okafor is so “at peace” residing in Evanston, IL as compared to Abuja or Lagos eating Egusi soup.
This work is rich and powerful! It’s disappointing to see Dr. Okafor’s rigorous research dismissed with xenophobic attacks. His work builds on a long line of scholarship — from Granovetter’s work on social ties to Raj Chetty’s findings on economic mobility — but makes a novel contribution by mathematically modeling how smaller group size alone leads to unequal outcomes *even in so-called “colorblind” systems*. That’s not rehashing; it’s advancing the conversation.
The claim that he’s only focused on African or Caribbean immigrants is inaccurate — his research explicitly refers to racial minority groups broadly. Reducing his work to his birthplace ignores that anti-Blackness is global and that Black scholars from across the diaspora have long contributed to understanding U.S. racial inequality.
If you disagree with his model, engage it on the merits. But dismissing it through mockery and gatekeeping only avoids the real issues his work forces us to confront.
Dr. Okafor’s research is a vital contribution to understanding how structural inequality operates beneath the surface of “neutral” systems. His ability to blend rigorous economic modeling with real-world social insight is exactly the kind of scholarship we need more of.
This is incredibly timely and important research. I’m grateful we’re entering an era where researchers like Okafor are troubling these long and widely held myths that ultimately perpetuate inequality in the name of fairness. The implications for this work are massive and I look forward to education scholars and practitioners gleaning from these insights to improve our education system as well.
I’m appreciative that Dr. Okafor has engaged in this work. His model adds analytical insights to efficiently combat the common narratives in this space. I hope research like this gains more traction and can shift the thinking around hiring decisions.
Dr. Okafor’s research is invaluable precisely because it provides rigorous empirical evidence for what marginalized communities have known experientially for generations. This work serves as a shield against the relentless gaslighting that occurs when people report structural disadvantages and are met with dismissive platitudes about “merit” and “equal opportunity.” When victims of systemic inequality articulate their experiences, they are told they imagine bias, foment division, or “play the race card.” Mathematical modeling, however, has no ulterior motives—it demonstrates and reveals the experiences that are being lived. The social network discrimination model provides to the marketplace of ideas an analytical framework against those who insist that removing explicit racial considerations automatically creates fairness. His findings establish that structural inequality persists even in supposedly neutral systems because the architecture of opportunity itself is built on unequal foundations. Dr. Okafor’s model quantifies how disadvantage compounds over time, which is critical for policy intervention. This constitutes more than academic exercise—it provides validation, documentation, and mathematical proof that neutrality in process does not guarantee equity in result.
It merits observation that gatekeeping regarding who possesses standing to analyze American racism reflects the very mechanisms of exclusion that Dr. Okafor’s research exposes. White supremacy, without fail, anoints and appoints these gatekeepers. Their comments reveal intellectual bankruptcy and profound intimidation in the face of this esteemed scholar of Nigerian descent—credentialed by Stanford, Yale, and Harvard—who employs sophisticated economic modeling to prove what the anointed, the appointed, the antagonizers already accept but cannot articulate. Dr. Okafor stands as an ally, a servant to all, in dismantling structural racism, continuing a transnational intellectual tradition spanning from C.L.R. James to Stuart Hall, from Paul Gilroy to Sylvia Wynter—a tradition that resists provincial gatekeeping.
Dr. Okafor’s contribution advances our collective understanding of how markets fail to produce efficient outcomes when network effects dominate. His research appeals not only to those motivated by justice but also to those prioritizing economic optimization. This is scholarship that unifies multiple normative frameworks around a common empirical reality. The mathematical precision of his model insulates these findings from critiques often leveled at qualitative social science, providing empirical clarity on questions too often obscured by ideology and assumption. Dr. Okafor and readers committed to intellectual honesty deserve substantive engagement with the ideas, models, and premises set forth—not ad hominem deflection. We await such engagement, and we will not be tired by waiting. The fight continues, nevertheless.
This article is an important reminder that claims of “color blindness” in organizations often obscure the deeper mechanisms through which inequity persists. Networks — who we know, who advocates for us, and who opens doors — remain a central driver of opportunity.
As Audrey Murrell’s work on mentoring demonstrates, access to developmental relationships is not equally available, and these gaps compound over time. Herminia Ibarra has shown that networks also shape leadership identity and trajectory, often privileging those with existing social capital. David Thomas and John Gabarro’s Breaking Through further illustrates how inequitable access to developmental networks constrains career advancement for Black professionals and other underrepresented groups.
Okafor advances this conversation by showing how the ideology of color blindness does not disrupt these inequities; rather, it can entrench them. If we fail to see the structural patterns embedded in our networks, we unintentionally reproduce them.
This research is a call to action: to move beyond the rhetoric of neutrality, to design networks with intention, and to ensure that access, sponsorship, and mentorship are equitably available. Only then can organizations begin to realize the inclusive excellence they claim to value.