Career Center News US pledges to support India terror investigation SD Guard defendants seek discrimination case dismissal Mesa may rebrand go! airlines as Aloha Airlines Jury decides Fresno co. did not discriminate Bhutanese refugees start new lives in towns like Pittsburgh Supplement: Indian American rx. to Mumbai attacks Specials Meet the Members of EON - our community  networking effort Graduate / Professional School Channel

Igasaki EEO Corner: Diversity - What a Concept!

Introduction to new feature column on workplace EEO topics by the former Vice Chair of the U.S. EEOC

By Paul M. Igasaki, IMDiversity.com Featured EEO Columnist

Washington, DC – Once even talking about valuing a mixture of races, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, ages or persons with disabilities was considered problematic. Being blind to difference was considered ideal.  Times have certainly changed.  In the business world and in government, including even the U.S. Supreme Court, the concept of diversity has received support, or at least acceptance.   We now see diversity positions, even departments, in most major companies, as well as consultants like myself or publications like IMDiversity that explore the methods involved in fostering workplace diversity.  This is a good thing and I hope that it continues.

It concerns me, however, that many fail to understand that this is a complicated challenge.  The first and most important step in dealing with diversity is to believe that it is a beneficial thing to pursue in your institution, whether it is a workplace, a school or media outlet.  But that is merely the starting point.  In my previous position as Vice Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I helped enforce the nation’s laws against job discrimination.  This is only a portion of the diversity reality, but it is an important one.  Like so many things, diversity is about balancing factors and considering what one needs to do to be effective, fair and within the law.  It is about finding and promoting good employees from diverse backgrounds, about maintaining an environment that not only accommodates difference, but  thrives because of it.   Positive values, yes, but more complicated than one might think. 

A colleague once said that complying with discrimination laws was not rocket science.  While that may be true, I definitely don’t want folks to think that there is nothing to it.  It is more than merely not wanting to discriminate or wishing for a diverse workforce.

A while back I read about a government agency that implemented a diversity program that, among other things, sought to reduce sexual harassment, obviously a very important goal.  Among the methods allegedly employed was requiring the male workers to endure forms of sexual harassment.  From a behavior modification point of view, that certainly could sensitize someone who did not realize the hurtful nature of harassment.  On the other hand, it could lead, as I understand this incident did, to discrimination charges of its own and undermine the organization’s legitimate objectives.  I read about this in the newspaper, so I may not have all of the details, but the point is that an organization must be thoughtful and strategic in its diversity efforts.

No “Safe Harbor” or Quick Fixes

One of the most frequent questions I received from managers as I traveled nationwide and even abroad for the EEOC was what employment practices were “safe harbors” from a legal point of view.  I understand why they asked that; running an organization requires avoiding activities that cost the organization in money or distractions from the organizational mission.  From a management point of view, clear and unambiguous answers are sought as to what creates diversity and what does not.  Managers want to know in advance what specific diversity efforts will not risk legal liability.  It would be nice if it were simple.  But, for the most part, it is not.  It is a subjective area requiring an understanding of diversity, how different people will react to different situations, and all of the factors at play in a particular organization and community.

With disabilities, for example, when an accommodation is requested, thinking through what would be reasonable for a particular business and worker will be different in every situation. One size does not fit all.

Wanting diversity is not enough to actually achieve it.   Figuring out why you don’t have a diverse workforce, for example, may not be so easy to figure.  What is the company’s image regarding diversity generally and with particular minority groups?  It is not surprising that increasing diversity doesn’t occur when recruitment is done through your existing workers or through usual techniques.  Is your recruitment campaign focused on publications and events of interest to certain communities and to people with different backgrounds?  Is recruiting done locally only or nationally?  Utilizing headhunters that have connections to particular minority groups makes a difference.

How are hiring and advancement decisions made by the company?   Is there an affirmative action plan that is taken seriously? Are the hiring pools diverse as opposed to the ultimate workforce?  If so, the problem could be in the selection procedure or in recruiting competitive diversity recruits.  Do the job descriptions seek the characteristics that are truly necessary for the job, or are there factors that are not necessary that limit who would be hired?  

If your organization is inclusive and fair for most employees, might there be problems for particular minority groups?  How does a company resolve the need of one employee to show his or her religious affiliation and another’s being offended by it?  What about a company uniform or dress code that conflicts with an employee’s religious requirements?

Detailed Analysis, Objective Investigation

Clearly, diversity and compliance require careful analysis, and these analyses cannot be done on paper only.  When I worked with local government, I heard that someone seeking a promotion was told that he didn’t get the job because they had to hire a minority for the position.  I was very concerned, of course.  If true, it would’ve been discriminatory.  However, the manager who said this to the applicant responded when challenged that in fact the minority person chosen had greater experience with the precise challenges that the higher-level position required.  The manager sought to make the applicant feel better assuming that being discriminated against would be preferable to being told that he was less qualified for the job.

I trust that such incidents are infrequent these days.  This illustrates how critical it is to have a good, objective internal investigation of the specific details and context of diversity and discrimination concerns in an organization.  It also reminds us that, in the real world, people do not always do what seems professionally or legally preferable.  Staff whose responsibilities are usually far removed from diversity or equal opportunity standards will often stray from best practices because their primary focus is elsewhere.

I work in the diversity and equal employment opportunity fields because I believe in the values behind them and the need for professionals serving business, government and other sectors to refine methods and resolve disputes.  The fact that it is not easy does not detract from its importance.  America is not defined by its race, religion or ethnicity as so many other countries are.  In a very real sense, those differences are what makes this country great and allows us to grow and change.