I guess this is the new buzzterm for affirmative action. But this is slightly different and I’d appreciate your learned opinions.
First some background info:
My employer’s position is that diversity in the workplace is a good thing and that we are better, more productive, etc. because of it. My boss and I have debated this issue on more than one occasion–I can speak candidly with him on matters such as this without fear of reprisal–and it’s his position that diversity is an “asset.” He doesn’t believe in quotas or reverse discrimination, but says that if two job applicants are equally qualified, the “diverse” candidate is slightly more qualified because of this “asset.” The logic, as I’ve been told, is that this person can bring new ideas to the table that the others haven’t thought of.
My opinion:
I think the whole thing is a nonissue (and rather silly, to be blunt). I’m not trying to belittle the plight of those that face or have faced discrimination; prejudice and discrimination is obviously evil, and we should work to eliminate wherever possible. But stating that one person is more qualified because of their [racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, religious…] diversity is the definition of discrimination, in my opinion. Personally, I like Jane Doe in Department X because she’s a nice person with a good sense of humor, not because she’s Hispanic; it’s irrelevant to me. Perhaps a diverse group is helpful for things such as book club discussions, SDMB Great Debates, or cooking contests, but we’re talking about accounting! I believe our responsibility is to prepare financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Why not make hiring decisions based purely on educational attainment, work experience, professional certifications, etc.?
Issue II:
I believe my employer has made a fallacious argument. There seems to be an error in logic when they state that […]diversity is good and therefore results in increased profits, productivity, and morale. It’s been a long time since I took logic in college, so I’m hoping some of you out there can analyze this argument for me. How can they posit such a conclusion, even if we assume that the original premise is correct? I wanted to burst out laughing during the diversity meeting but I wasn’t sure my diverse sense of humor would have been well received.
Diversity can be an asset in a few environments. My dad works in advertising, and he tells me that’s a field where cultural diversity can be a help. There is a growing field of advertising designed to target the large hispanic communities, for instance. You can learn alot from a demographic sheet and accompanying studies, but sometimes it can be helpful to have somebody who grew up in that community or a similiar one. There are also some successful agencies that focus entirely on advertising to the black community.
As long as there is a sort of de facto segregation along ethnic/cultural lines in American communities, then people from diverse racial backgrounds may have diverse experiences, interests, etc. In some contexts, I can see this being useful to a company to possess a cross-section of those cultures to bring those ideas to the table when they’re needed. But in most companies, it probably is a null factor.
My employer also strives for diversity, but I do not believe this influences hiring practices, as they are fairly strictly regulated by the state of California, and we’ve already done away with affirmative action.
I, for one, am for diversity, but that should be obvious.
Is your company serving or interacting with a diverse population? Do you deal with people or only with the books?
Most companies today do have broad interactions, whether it is serving/interacting with a segment of the global marketplace or merely the broad spectrum of cultures that is today’s Americana.
Does your particular cultural background both inform and limit you in ways that you may not even be consciously aware?
Most of us would have to answer yes to that. As a white Jewish male, I have a certain understanding of Jewish sensibilities that that a Southern Baptist Black man or a White country boy or an urban Catholic woman may not have. There will be things that are obvious to me that others would have a hard time understanding. Likewise there are aspects of each of their cultural heritage that I cannot even begin to fathom; oftentimes aspects that were not explicitly taught, but implicit in how they were raised. To them it is a “No Duh” and to me it is an “Aha” moment.
Now if your job is limited to crunching the numbers, and you have, and never will have, any interaction with people or with long range planning, then your ability to number crunch is all that should count. I would guess that your boss presumes, however, that future company leadership will arise out of corporate ranks, and having a wide pool to call upon is advantagous.
A way of looking at it is how college admisions deans look at choosing students for their class (not visavis race, but visavis skill sets): “What we are looking for is a well-rounded student body, not a well rounded student.” Your boss wants a well rounded corporate population.
Will this really translate into a more productive workplace? Who knows? Diverse people can also come into conflict, and have ineficiencies becuase of the very same reasons that one would want diversity … they don’t have quite the same perspective, don’t quite understand the same things in exactly the same way. Misunderstandings occur. Sometimes people are easily insulted and sensitive from past experiences; sometimes people are overly cautious to not insult and afraid to speak forthrightly.
Still, in the absence of data, I’d argue for the overall advantages of a diverse team.
The goals of a college and the goals of a corporation are slightly different.
Case in point. I work in a small biotech company with about 600 employees. My company is very proud of its stance on diversity, which it defines as hiring a large number of newly-minted mainland Chinese PhDs. In return for sponsoring their green cards, they get cut-rate, obliging labor. This is symbiosis, not diversity. Although we all work together professionally, the Chinese and those of European descent tend to asssociate with themselves. Doubtless some will see this as one group shutting out another, but I think it’s just human nature. “Like likes like.” Someone who grew up in New York will have more empathy and an easier rapport with someone who grew up watching the same stupid TV shows, knows the same jokes and shares a similar culture than someone who spent their formative years on a collective in the Chinese interior, and vice-versa.
I don’t get diversity. It’s like the eight men and the elephant. Everyone talks about, everyone thinks it’s good, yet it has never been clearly (and authoritatively) defined, nor has the mechanism wherein it magically “makes everything better” been described.
I personally think it a bunch of hooey which focuses on people’s differences and will eventually lead to a country of 270 million special interest groups. Why do we all have to be “Different” and “Special?” Why can’t we just be “American?”
First off it is hard to call what you describe as diversity.
For a comparison reread what the boss in the op is stating: if two canidates present, each well qualified, he’d give the nod to someone who has something he doesn’t already have on his team - be it a Chinese heritage, or French, or Hispanic, or whatever. Not more of the same.
How do you avoid like gravitating to like? You can’t entirely. But this isn’t grade school, when put on a project together you and your co-worker of whatever background will work together and bring your histories, for better or worse, with you.
Makes everything better? Who claimed that? The claim is that a good coach thrives in having a wide variety of talent to call upon. A bad coach can misuse diverse talent as well as he can homgenous talent.
The op’s boss sounds like a good coach. He is comfortable hearing out ideas that he disagrees with. He doesn’t let that get in the way of using his employees diverse skills to their fullest.
I agree with whomever said having a diverse workplace is good if you have a diverse clientele.
For instance, I’m a graduate student at the most diverse university in the whole USA (this isn’t hyperbole, it’s fact). However, my department really isn’t that diverse. All of the faculty is white. Most of them are male. The Ph.D students are just slightly better, with a large number of them being Chinese. I’m actually the only black person in my department besides the secretary (which is odd, considering the school’s in Newark, NJ). Neither the faculty or the grad student body (aka the TAs) come close to reflecting the composition of the undergrad population they serve.
We’ve had a few incidents of professors demeaning students because of their nationalities or religion (particularly around 9/11), but I think that most of the effect is subtle. I think having a faculty body that doesn’t reflect the student population fosters stereotypes about who does science (white or Chinese people) and who doesn’t (black, Latino, and everyone else). In addition, professors may inadvertedly alienate students if they don’t understand where they are coming from culturally. Sometimes gaffs are made. One of my fellow grad students often mistakes her Hispanic students for Arabs or Indians. In the case of academia, I think diversity is as much an assest as having a diverse student body.
My opinion on diversity in the workplace is this: when I have a position to fill, I will hire the person I believe will do it best and be the greatest asset to the workplace. If that person is a left-handed Italian atheist or a gay Eskimo Buddhist, I could not care less- it’s not going to weight for them or against them. If I hire either of the people above and another employee wants to make rude jokes about “the gay Eskimo Buddhist and the left-handed Italian atheist”, then that person will answer to me because I will not put up with bigotry or anything else that creates a workplace that’s hostile to anything other than sloth and inefficiency.
I will never seek to “add color” to an office. Tokens are for subways and kindergardeners milk.
I am employed in academia and I have had pressure put on me to hire minorities even when their resume and skills were below that of other candidates. While I honestly do not have the least problem with hiring any person of any background (well, Nazi cannibals might be out), I have so far refused to let race/ethnicity/orientation/etc. be an issue in hiring either way. I have no doubt one day I’ll have to answer for it.
On a related note, my students have heard the words “diversity appreciation” and “multicultural” so often that it’s become a joke to them. I very rarely encounter a bigoted student of any color, but most of the ones I’ve spoken to (including non WASPs) say that they are sick and tired of having empty words praising “diversity” rammed down their throats. “We’re really not burning crosses or throwing rocks at Muslim and Hindu students- we get the point!”
I can’t find fault with diversity as you defined it (“a wide variety of talent to call upon”). That’s just good common sense. Ditto Sampiro’s approach to hiring. No argument there, either. However, when diversity is interpreted as meaning hiring for ethnicity as some sort of diffuse, amorphous panacea, rather than hiring on the basis of what someone can bring to the table, well, that’s what frosts my shorts.
Granted, I was engaging in a little hyperbole, but not much. While I never heard anyone say it in exactly those words, that is the gist of many peoples’ interpretation of diversity. Witness Sampiro’s concern that he will be taken to task for his gender/race/culture-neutral approach to hiring. Look at Monstro’s post:
According to this logic, white, male professors will confuse a hispanic student for an arab, but a Korean (for example) professor is evidently immune from such a gaffe. He implies that an Arab professor would never, ever demean, say, an Israeli student.
I think that in people’s rush to embrace/implement diversity, they make a subtle, tacit logical misstep in forgetting that no matter what their race, culture or sexual orientation, a person can still be a butthead.
I find it amusing, if somewhat eyeball-roll-inducing, that on the applications for employment I’ve seen for colleges, they make a big point of saying that the applicant should be willing and ready to work in a diverse environment with all sort of different people–meaning not just gender and race-wise, but also in terms of economic levels, single parents, you name it.
Having worked on college campuses for twelve years now, I find it more than obvious that there is a very diverse population in this area. If it’s already a given, why do they make such an issue out of it? If you didn’t want to work with such a community, why would you be applying in the first place?
I didn’t include any logic in my statement, so your extrapolation is without merit. I didn’t even say it was a white person who had made that mistake, anyway.
To me, it seems like such blunders are reduced when you’re familiar with the backgrounds of your students. To be sure, having a few faculty members who are Korean, Arab, or what-not doesn’t ensure that you will be educated about different cultures, but it certaintly doesn’t help when everyone in the department is just as clueless as you are.
It strikes me that those who have the hardest time understanding the value of diversity are probably the least likely to patronize a business where the people behind the desk don’t look like them. Or enroll in a school where they stick out among the student body and all the professors. Or work in an environment where they are the “minority”. If you’ve ever been in positions like these, then you would know why diversity serves a purpose in present-day society. Sometimes efforts may go overboard, but the overall concept shouldn’t be that hard to swallow.
The business, in this case a University faculty, is providing a service to a diverse population of customers, in this case students. Part of their product is to be intellectual role models for their customers.
Given equally sufficient qualifications otherwise, which faculty has a better chance of being effective role models for this diverse group, which faculty is more likely to make decisions that serve the demands of their customer base … a group of homgenous white guys? or a diverse faculty? Diversity in that corporate body helps them to better meet the needs of their customer base.
None of which excuses the elevation of that concept to buzzword status as if mouthing it accomplishes some goal, or excuses hiring poorly qualified people over well qualified people as if diversity was more important than skill. But such was not what the op presented.
Be careful though, the Butthead Antidefamation League now has your number.
Therein lies the fallacy, I believe. Why does African-American (or homosexual, or physically handicapped, or whatever…) automatically mean more talent? Now, if we did the hiring based purely on educational talent or work experience talent, I’d agree. But that’s not what we’re talking about. To assume that a colorful office necessariliy brings more talent seems erroneous. That’s the crux of my argument.
I think racial, ethnic, and religious diversity in the workplace is very good for society. It makes sense to me that diversity is encouraged.
In some ways, it may be good for a business:
– Better understanding of customers from various backgrounds
– Diverse employees make other minority employees feel more comfortable working there
– Encourages looking a bigger pool of talent
In some ways, seeking diversity my be bad for a business
– Seeking diversity may mean choosing weaker employees or tolerating worse performance
– Homogeneous groups may work together more comfortably
– Small family businesses may be particularly efficient
I have a freind who has a big tool box. He must have two dozen different screwdrivers that are all nearly but not exactly alike. None is better than the others, but he prefers his toolbox to one that would have two dozen screwdrivers that were exactly the same.
That, I think, is what your boss means when he says diversity is an asset.
There seems to be a contradiction in your statements. In one statment, you say that the applicants have equal qualifications and that diversity is what tips the scales for your boss. In the other, you are suggesting that diversity is a talent. Isn’t that different from saying that diversity is an asset?
Most people who travel say that they find it “broadening.” I agree from my own experiences. I think that it was good for me mainly based on the diversity of cultures and people. Maybe your boss is thinking along those lines.
[quote]
by Sampiro
On a related note, my students have heard the words “diversity appreciation” and “multicultural” so often that it’s become a joke to them.
I’m glad that your students are so open to diversity that such terms aren’t necessary anymore. In my first year of teaching in a newly integrated school, the principal asked me to review some textbooks because he didn’t like this new “multicultural influence.”
Hmmm…I wonder if we could make the U.S. Senate function better by reintroducing minorities into the chamber.
Monstro
My mistake; when you said that all of the faculty are white and most are males, and that a faculty member had made gaffes, I made the logical leap (or “misstep”). Point taken.
The "logic’ example was an illustration of the kind of flaccid thinking that many people follow when discussing diversity; it was not aimed at you specifically, but did draw on your post as an example.
Once again, others have spoken more eloquently than me. I have no truck with the scenario Dseid has laid out. In that situation, his argument in favor of diversity is unassailable. My major bone of contention with diversity is when it is done for cosmetic (or political), rather than practical reasons.
By including minorities in the population of potential employees, you have increased the sheer number of candidates, thus providing opportunity for an even better/more talented work force. Kinda like 3A schools vs. 4A or 5A schools in sports. It’s not that 5A schools have better students. They just have a larger population to choose from.
