This paragraph jumps out at me:<p>> For our entrepreneurial email senders, we opted to use distinctively East-Asian (i.e., Asian) and Western-European (i.e., White) last names, both paired with common American first names that are distinctively female or male. Asians are overrepresented in the U.S. venture capital space, relative to their fraction of the U.S. population. Gompers and Wang (2017) report that 11% of U.S. entrepreneurs backed by venture capital firms are Asian, as are 11% of U.S. VCs, compared to 5% of the U.S. labor force. Despite this, past audit studies uniformly find strong discrimination against Asians (see Section 4 for more details). Correspondence studies that look at discrimination against both Asian and Black applicants often find that both groups face similar level of discrimination (e.g., Wood, Hales, Purdon, Sejersen, and Hayllar (2009); Booth, Leigh, and Varganova (2012); and Milkman, Akinola, and Chugh (2012)). This bias extends to Asians who do not appear to be foreigners. For example, Oreopoulos (2011) finds that Asians with English first names, Canadian university degrees, and several years of Canadian work experience get 21% fewer callbacks than similar White Canadian job applicants.<p>That effect seems quite large. Doesn’t that indicate (rather conclusively?) a large amount of pro-Asian bias?