In the United States, to qualify ‘workplace’ by ‘diversity’ could go back to when the country used the term melting pot to describe how immigrants of diverse horizons come together into the national american culture. Nevertheless, to be frank, diversity might not be enough to promote inclusion in the workplace. Moreover, it can reveal the cruel and unethical practices found today in the workplace. Dr. Scott B. Rae, in Moral Choices, correctly observed that “To overcome decades of racial and gender discrimination, the diversity movement has taken hold of most organizations, including schools, businesses, and governments.”
To further our understanding of the diversity hiring process issue, let us consider the following scenario: Assuming that a Caucasian woman and a Hispanic man, whose academic credentials and work experience are substantially inferior to the Caucasian woman, were interviewed for a job. Surprisingly, the company hired the Hispanic man not because they wanted to reach out to Hispanic clients per se but simply because they wanted additional minority representation. Evidently, the decision to hire this man was based on his race and not on his competence for the job. But “What is wrong with that?” Someone may ask.
The factual question is: To whose benefit and whose detriment is diversity in the above scenario? Our approach is threefold. Briefly, we will see whether or not the Caucasian woman has been mistreated; second, identify if the company should take considerations of diversity over traditional qualifications such as grades, test scores, and experience of the candidates; and third, to find out whether the hiring decision is giving a disadvantaged person a chance that he might not get otherwise. If yes, is it a case of reverse discrimination against the Caucasian woman.
Diversity according to the biblical view
Strictly speaking, when considering a Christian view of diversity, at least two fundamentals surface: the unity of the human race and the universality of the Christian church.
When it comes to the workplace, overcoming the prejudices that often dominate people in organizations, businesses, and, sadly, in churches too, it is clear that society faces significant challenges in applying the fundamental principles cited above. The Pauline statement before the Athenian philosophers that stressed that “From one man God made every nation of the human race, that they should inhabit the whole earth (Acts 17:26)” recognizes the importance of the truth that God created the human race as one, and His intention was a world full of diversity.
The Book of Genesis notes, “God created men [the human race] in His own image. Male and female, He made them (1:27). By that time, it is important to observe that the unique adjectives ‘male’ and ‘female’ are used to express the diversity of gender. It is to say that the commitment to biblical diversity must be firmly grounded in the primary commitment to the biblical truth, in which we find countless examples where men and women function in their distinct roles and responsibilities as an effective diverse group. From the Garden of Eden to Moses to Jesus, men and women have worked together as a diverse group.
The second fundamental aspect of the Christian view of diversity is that the universality of the Christian church finds its utmost expression of diversity both through the length of the Scriptures and the history of the church. Dr. Scott Rae reminds us that “We see this diversity reflected in the church’s founding on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2…The diversity and cultures and languages represented on Pentecost were what made the scene so remarkable..” In the Old Testament, the prophet Joel already proclaimed that in the latter days, God would pour His Spirit on “all people.” What is important to note is that the Holy Spirit reaches over all barriers of race, class, and gender in order to embrace all people for God’s message. Nevertheless, human experience has it that many times our beliefs often are so important to us that we categorically refuse to violate them. Worst, most of the time, they go against biblical principles.
WAS THE Caucasian woman DISCRIMINATED?
In his book, Ethics, Approaching Moral Decisions, Arthur Holmes attempts to determine the extent to which the beliefs and decision-making process can be standardized. Holmes indicates that there are two popular and influential ethical approaches, Egoism and Utilitarianism, that base moral decisions on what will maximize the inevitable consequences of a policy or an action. In other terms, these two positions usually undermine our decisions, and they reveal our true motivation. Egoism, Holmes notes, considers only the consequences for oneself, while utilitarianism considers the consequences for people at large.
In view of Holmes’s definition, we can argue that the Caucasian woman was not only treated unfairly in the above scenario, but, most importantly, from the side of the company, the decision not to hire this woman is clearly an act of egoism. It is important to note that it was not because this company would like to extend its service to the Hispanic community that they hired a Hispanic man. If that were the case, the assessment of their decision would likely be different.
One could still argue that hiring a Hispanic man better serves the Hispanic community’s needs. But the framework of their decision to hire the Hispanic man was structured around existing information that they wanted additional minority representation in the company. This decision, in the process, deprived the Caucasian woman of this job not because of her lack of competence –she is overqualified compared to the Hispanic candidate– but because of her race. That takes direct issue with the Equality Act. The Caucasian woman was discriminated against and mistreated based on her characteristics, such as her gender and race, which is prohibited in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It reads as follows:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, Discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of Employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This law is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
hAS THE COMPANY PRIORITIZED diversity over traditional qualifications such as grades, test scores, and experience ?
Besides, let us take a closer look at the next concern. Some might argue that the company can take considerations of diversity over traditional qualifications such as grades, test scores, and experience. In many countries around the world, including the United States, preferential treatment of groups in societies is being conducted not on an objective basis in which one’s qualifications and ability always prevail but rather on a subjective approach that is often based on an unexpressed premise that all people are equal in innate ability. But applied to the above scenario, the problem is if it were the case that the Caucasian woman and the Hispanic man were equal in ability, then when the company discovers that the Hispanic man is less successful (which is actually true) than the Caucasian woman, the inevitable conclusion should be that the hiring process must not have been based by their quota of ethnic representation but by the candidate ability to perform the job.
The lack of success and inability of the Hispanic man should not be turned into a “favor” mark. Put, this favor for the Hispanic man is synonym of failure for the Caucasian woman. Let us remember that this Hispanic man would not have been hired if he were a white man. In light of this, we can argue that the Hispanic man’s actual fate does not really matter to this company. All that matters to them is the symbolic ethnic presence as a mark of representation. .
IS IT A CASE OF reverse discrimination against the Caucasian woman?
We can also safely assume that this hiring decision gives a disadvantaged person a chance he might not otherwise get. In other terms, the issue is not whether the Hispanic man, or minorities in general –when considering the Affirmative Action policies— should be admitted or granted opportunities at the workplace, schools, and institutions. The issue is that this Hispanic man, given his low ability performance, is granted a job that clearly he would not get if he were white. Moreover, does it make a difference in the Hispanic community or for this man in particular?
Opportunity does not equal success. In his book, Affirmative Action Around the World, Thomas Sowell notes that “The brutal and honest truth is that regardless of the many opportunities that someone, a group, community, or race, is given, some people will not rise from poverty to improve their lives because to do that takes tenacity and discipline.”
Success in many kinds of endeavors depends on prerequisites peculiar to each endeavor. The decision to hire a disadvantaged person would bring different results. Furthermore, that sets the stage for a fundamental shortcoming in its inadequacy at remedying group inequalities –namely between the Caucasian woman and the Hispanic man groups. That can also create ethnic tension because the disadvantaged man who lacks sufficient resources to take such opportunities happens to get them nonetheless, to the detriment of those, given their qualification and experience, who can perform their work excellently.
In essence, societies must address this problem by equipping children with firmer educational foundations, in which the disadvantaged person is encouraged to exercise self-discipline to overcome a culture of inequality instead.
last thoughts
Therefore, although specific indices may strongly suggest a discriminatory hiring policy, where employment in certain institutions is marked by the absence of certain ethnic groups, opting for reverse discrimination is not always –if not never– the solution. On the one hand, we cannot assume that if minorities are underrepresented in an institution, business, or government, that is de facto evidence that discrimination keeps them out of those places.
On the other hand, minorities should not seek comfort in different forms of Affirmative Action policies whose efforts to redress the social, educational, and economical lack of minorities are only based in racial discrimination. For instance, Reverse Discrimination. Concerning these forms of affirmative actions, one must remember the charges that Roy Wilkins, then Executive Director of NACP, brought against all organized Affirmative Actions and Preference quotas in the United States. His thoughts are expressed as follows:
“Our association has never been in favor of a quota system. We believe that the quota system is unfair, whether it is used for blacks or against blacks. We feel people ought to be hired because of their ability, irrespective of their color. We want equality, equality of opportunity, and employment on the basis of ability.”
In a literal and biblical sense, affirming someone is encouraging him. This encouragement is often done through a statement or action. What is important to note here is that the Scriptures are filled with affirmations about what God has given us. Moreover, every promise of God finds its affirmation in Him. Paul reminds us that “All the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us” (2 Cor. 1:20).
However, considering the scenario above, the case of reverse discrimination against the woman that was seeking employment can translate as an imperfect attempt of “racial justice” that she had to suffer because of her race. Yet, a remedy would be that promoting equality along with the fear of God could have been of great benefit in granting access and opportunities for everyone, regardless of their racial or ethnic group. That is, society must demonstrate the reality of Christ’s culture-transforming love to discover the blessings that come with multicultural diversity.