Watch the video below to learn more about the history behind this case, which was filed in 2010.

Read also:

Asian Americans Are Fastest-Growing Racial Group

Jeremy Lin & Racism: 3 Ways to Stop Dangerous Stereotypes

Asian-American Heritage Facts & Figures

The post Managers’ Racist Bullying Ends in Hospital Paying $1M Lawsuit appeared first on DiversityInc.

An article about a white immigrant from Mozambique, Paulo Serodio, who describes himself as an African American, was forwarded to DiversityInc.com by a reader who asked, “What is your opinion?”

This is a simple answer: Serodio is NOT an African American, he is a Mozambican American. Since he is white, he is most likely a descendant of the former colonial occupiers from Portugal. If he were Black and recently emigrated, he would be able to identify himself by country or native ethnic group–for example, Macua American.

African Americans are descendants of enslaved people brought here against their will. We must use the broad description of a continent (Africa), rather than the specific description of a country (for example, Mozambique), because American slave owners purposefully broke up ethnic groups and families as a means to break the spirit of the people they enslaved. Since it was also illegal in many states to teach an enslaved person to read and write, it became impossible for African Americans to pass down history from their homeland.

The use of the term “African American” became a popular SELF-descriptor, popularized by the Rev. Jesse Jackson. It is a term of pride, documenting the achievements and culture of a group of people uniquely oppressed and uniquely American.

Serodio is suing the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey for suspending him after he revealed that he identified himself as an African American. By doing so, he wishes to stand on the shoulders of the many African Americans who fought and died to attain freedom, in order to benefit from programs that are in place to redress past wrongs. His court suit is frivolous. His ignorance and lack of sensitivity indicates that he’d make a horrible doctor.

Luke Visconti’s Ask the White Guy column is a top draw on DiversityInc.com. Visconti, the founder and CEO of DiversityInc, is a nationally recognized leader in diversity management. In his popular column, readers who ask Visconti tough questions about race/culture, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability and age can expect smart, direct and disarmingly frank answers.

The post Is a White Immigrant From Africa Really an African American? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Luke Visconti’s Ask the White Guy column is a top draw on DiversityInc.com. Visconti, the founder and CEO of DiversityInc, is a nationally recognized leader in diversity management. In his popular column, readers who ask Visconti tough questions about race/culture, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability and age can expect smart, direct and disarmingly frank answers.

A recent Politico article states: “Long pilloried for being soft on illegal immigration, top Democratic officials have concluded there’s only one way they can hope to pass a comprehensive immigration bill: Talk more like Republicans. They’re seizing on the work of top Democratic Party operatives who, after a legislative defeat in 2007, launched a multiyear polling project to craft an enforcement-first, law-and-order, limited-compassion pitch that now defines the party’s approach to the issue.

“The 12 million people who unlawfully reside the country? Call them ‘illegal immigrants,’ not ‘undocumented workers,’ the pollsters say. Strip out the empathy, too. Democrats used to offer immigrants ‘an earned path to citizenship’ so hardworking people trying to support their families could ‘come out of the shadows.’ To voters, that sounded like a gift, the operatives concluded. Now, Democrats emphasize that it’s ‘unacceptable’ to allow 12 million people to live in America illegally and that the government must ‘require’ them to register and ‘get right with the law.’ That means three things: ‘Obey our laws, learn our language and pay our taxes’—or face deportation.” 

Response: What foolishness. Pandering to haters is a slippery slope that always leads to self-immolation.

I have no problem giving someone the “gift” of earning their way to citizenship, especially when this country screwed up the process to become a citizen in the first place and didn’t enforce the law because it was convenient to have the workers here.

Here’s something to think about: We’re in the middle of producing an article on the prison-industrial complex. There are three for-profit prison companies that are publicly traded. Stocks go up when revenue increases, but the growth spurt in creating new prisoners has flattened out now that we imprison eight times the rest of the world’s average*. So what happens? OH! Here’s an idea: Let’s round up the “illegals” and stuff them in detention centers (that the for-profit prison companies are busy building and staffing). It’s a move that will plump up stock prices—and employ thousands of people who will vote in their selfish best interests. Why didn’t it happen until now? It’s not palatable to round up the “illegals” when the economy is booming and business owners NEED those workers, but a downturn in the economy means you can create new laws to prey on the people you’re now dehumanizing. Re-read your history of why the Weimar Republic ended—and who ended it.

Which leads me to another interesting fact: Guess what other industry went up in this downturn? SWAT-team attacks.

Interesting to think that the Second Amendment was put in place mainly to give the citizens parity with soldiers. (The British were an occupying force. The Second Amendment—and THIRD Amendment; have you read that one lately?—were put in place to prevent future oppressive occupying forces.) We don’t have parity anymore. Every podunk police force has a “SWAT team” with MP5 submachine guns, black uniforms—and hoods to hide identities. See what happens if you wear an outfit like that to Walmart.

So sure, let them round up them “illegals”—yee-ha! We can concentrate them in facilities that the misery merchants will build for us. Hey, after all, Daddy Prisonbucks needs a new vacation home and that will employ people too! But who will they come after once that growth industry runs out? After all, even with 10 million to 16 million “illegals,” it won’t take long to tap that vein. The water’s coming to a boil and we’re in the pot asking “I wonder what they’re cooking—it smells so good.”

For what it’s worth, I have no problem with “illegal immigrants,” but I do have a problem calling someone an “illegal.” The minute you dehumanize a group (which calling a person an “illegal” does), you take a major step in treating people inhumanly. For example, you can whip soldiers up to “kill the g–ks” and “torch the ‘ville” and joke about it, but it gets personal sometimes. Diversity expert and civil-rights activist Dr. Betances once told me about seeing American Army posters designed to whip up hate to kill Cubans after Castro’s revolution (when we were noodling about invading Cuba). The posters dehumanized Cuban faces (so the soldiers would have a lower threshold to killing them). It was painfully clear to Dr. Betances that he looked a lot like the guys pictured in the posters!

The point is: When has feeding hate not come back to bite the haters in the butt—often fatally? I see these people with their protest signs saying things like “What part of ‘illegal’ don’t you understand?” and I wonder at how readily foolish people can be manipulated to bring about their own destruction.

*Oh, and by the way, once they’re done making money from these felons, they drop them off on the taxpayer’s lap to take care of now that we’ve made them unemployable. It’s the same thinking that the Goldman Sachs people have—yep, we support the “free market” until it comes time to clean up the mess. Then the perpetrators get scarce and let the taxpayer deal with it.

The post Ask the White Guy: ‘Illegal’ Is a Dehumanizing Term appeared first on DiversityInc.

Comment:
I’ve tended to notice more people using undocumented, without papers, noncitizens, etc. Is it rude, racist to say illegal? I’m also curious to know what exactly, or who exactly these illegal immigrants’ rights people are fighting for. BTW, I think it is very offensive to compare the fight for the rights of illegals to that of Blacks, which were already citizens. The law states that race cannot be used to make stops. The police will not, and cannot stop you on the street. But truly the most ironic thing about this whole issue is with all of this talk about “rights” there has been very little in regards to responsibility.

Response:
Regarding rights, please refer to the Declaration of Independence. It states that rights come from the creator; governments are formed by people to administer the protection of these rights. Further, the rights are “unalienable” and do not belong exclusively to people with certain documents or within a boundary. These rights are for all people. So, therefore, describing a human being as “illegal” should be offensive to any loyal American. It’s more offensive than spitting on someone.

Further, there are an estimated 10 to 16 million undocumented people in this country. Do you think they’re here by mistake? They’re here because they were needed—and they were allowed to work here without restriction. Do you blame the undocumented, or do you blame the people responsible for the administration of our borders?

In 2006, Newt Gingrich wrote an article for National Review that contained this sentence: “In 2004, there were zero (0) federal enforcement fines imposed on American employers who were breaking the law by hiring people illegally.” What Newt doesn’t catch is that this is evidence of a conspiracy. People who are here without documents don’t have Social Security numbers—they use fake cards or other people’s numbers. That means that the federal government collected billions of dollars in Social Security taxes without a corresponding expectation to pay benefits. If the people in the federal government had Italian last names, the FBI would crawl all over this. The people responsible would be prosecuted under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act and the Ill-Gotten Gains would be confiscated. So I agree with you about not hearing enough about “responsibility,” but it’s not the kind of responsibility you’re thinking of.

Follow-up Comment:
Just as an aside; what happens when Mexico finds out someone is an “illegal immigrant” [sic] in their country? You stated that “these people are here because they were needed,” etc. and “What Newt didn’t catch is that this is evidence of a conspiracy.” OK, so be it, maybe it was. Uh, let’s try to fix that, maybe by enforcing our own immigration laws? But really, do you think that ALL of the ‘Undocumented Workers” paid into Social Security? What it comes down to is that the U.S. has laws, protocol if you will, for people who want to have the same benefits as a U.S. citizen. These people are breaking our own law, and AZ is trying to enforce it. What’s happened to hospitals along the border, schools also? Whatever happened to border security? Remember that, please. The security of the U.S. is in danger because we really don’t know who’s coming into our country. The AZ law does not call out people from Mexico. If a person deserves to get stopped for a traffic violation, and that person doesn’t have a driver’s license or insurance, or if there is any reasonable suspicion, the officer can inquire about that person’s legal status. The officers are being trained, they have consequences if they get out of line. Just take a breather people. Racial profiling?? Get a grip people. According to the ’09 Census, 30 percent of AZ’s population is Hispanic. These Hispanics are U.S. Citizens or documented, “going through our system.” Do you realize the police force it would take to stop somebody and question them if they were “racial profiling.” They don’t have the time or the resources. Check this out. The only reason we caught the Times Square terrorist Faisal Shahzad is because he became a U.S. Citizen last year. That’s what I call border security. Come to this country the right way, or don’t come at all.

Ask the White Guy Response:
I didn’t say the porous borders we have are a positive thing. I said they constituted a criminal act. I am not a Mexican citizen, so I will not comment on their constitution and how they treat their citizens. The situation speaks for itself; the fences are not for Americans trying desperately to work in Mexico. I completely agree with you about people emigrating here legally. The problem is the current system is dysfunctional—and we have human beings here who need to be treated like human beings (because that’s what our founding documents demand of us). I am not comfortable with police arbitrating constitutional rights.

On your other point: Let’s say half of the undocumented people working in this country pay into Social Security—they ALL pay sales tax. It amounts to billions of dollars collected … quite a racket. ZERO enforcements as little as six years ago. ZERO. Not even ONE.

This law absolutely promotes racial profiling. They’re not concerned about Polish undocumented workers in Arizona. This is all about Mexicans. It’s nonsensical to give rhetorical arguments to tangible situations. This law is all about rabble rousing and race baiting. It’s hateful and anti-American.

The post Ask the White Guy: Is the Term ‘Illegal Immigrant’ Offensive? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Answer:
Most mainstream print publications in the United States use what is known as “AP style,” or the style dictated by The Associated Press Stylebook. This book and web site describe what to capitalize and what not to capitalize (among other rules of grammar).

To find companies that value Black employees, read The DiversityInc Top 10 Companies for Blacks List. You can also search for jobs on DiversityInc.com’s Career Center from companies on that list: AT&T, Target and Altria.

I made the decision not to follow AP style in the case of “Black” and “white” when it applies to describing people. AP style is to capitalize neither; however, terms such as African American, Negro, Caucasian, Italian American or Asian are all capitalized.

Regardless of whether there is adequate representation among the decision makers at the AP, I felt DiversityInc needed to be more accurate.

The word “Black” is used around the world to describe people who have “racial” features indicating African ancestry. Please keep in mind that the convention of race has been discarded by science–genetically, we are all one race, and the human-genome project proves we are all from Africa.

“Black” is also accepted by many Black people as an inoffensive description. It is a generalized description and can be supplemented by another description such as Black Canadian, Black African American, Nigerian American or Black Latino. However, many Black people describe themselves simply as being “Black,” and this reality is reflected in a body of literature, music and academic study.

I do not believe “white” needs to be capitalized because people in the white majority don’t think of themselves in that way. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this–it’s just how it is. The exception is white supremacists who have a definite vision for what “white” means. Most American white people describe themselves in more defined terms, such as Irish American or Jewish. I will make the point that African Americans (descendents of slaves) cannot define themselves more accurately than an entire continent because their ancestry was obliterated by the practices of enslavers, which included breaking apart tribal and family bonds.

I don’t think there will ever be a time in our country where “white” becomes “White.” Nor do I think white people will accept the term “minority” when we become less than 50 percent of our population by roughly 2045. I think that’s a good thing–people should be allowed to describe themselves, not have descriptions forced on them. I also think that the term “minority” is a pejorative and has no place in describing people.

Our capitalization of “Black” is both a reflection of reality and of respect. Opinions will differ on this, but as long as I make the decisions on editorial policy and content at DiversityInc, this is how this publication will write “Black” and “white.”

Luke Visconti’s Ask the White Guy column is a top draw on DiversityInc.com. Visconti, the founder and CEO of DiversityInc, is a nationally recognized leader in diversity management. In his popular column, readers who ask Visconti tough questions about race/culture, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability and age can expect smart, direct and disarmingly frank answers.

The post Why the ‘B’ in ‘Black’ Is Capitalized at DiversityInc appeared first on DiversityInc.

Question:

I recently was in a situation at work where a coworker made transphobic statements about a customer (out of earshot, thank God). He said things like, “That person isn’t really a woman,” and went on to mention how proud he was of himself for being able to “tell.” What are the best ways to react to such comments? I’m a queer white woman who’s out, and I wanted to engage my coworker in conversation as a peer so that our work relationship can continue to be positive, and so that we can have the kind of dialogue that eventually leads to greater understanding. At the same time, I also wanted to make it clear that what he said was unacceptable and that I won’t stand for it.

Answer:

Responding to offensive language requires discretion, tact and bravery.

Although your e-mail is very kindly worded, most people do not have the communication skills to offer successful criticism. That’s OK: Direct criticism is not always necessary. If you feel the person is purposely being offensive–especially in the workplace–good companies, like those in the DiversityInc Top 50, have procedural remedies to a hostile environment.

However, if you feel the person is simply ignorant of the pain his or her comments are creating, and you wish to intercede, then I think you need to plan what you’re going to say carefully, especially if you wish to change the person’s understanding of what’s acceptable and not just stop the (overt) offensive behavior. I suggest you offer a critique without an audience and in person if possible. Pick a semi-public place for your own safety.

Most people aren’t bigots, sexists or homophobes–and if handled with generosity, will respond to kindly offered dialogue. A fellow Navy pilot who took the time to explain his experience as an African American as he helped me be our office’s “minority officer recruiter” changed the trajectory of my life in the 1980s.

This doesn’t mean that you’re always going to have a “kumbaya” moment. My experience with the responses to this publication is that many people stubbornly hold onto their discriminatory views and take criticism as a personal attack, even when it’s counterproductive. Take your incident, for example. Only a creep would make a comment like that–especially considering he was in a work environment with an out lesbian in his company.

If the person is in a superior position to you and you’re afraid of retribution, be careful. Again, this doesn’t mean that you have to accept intolerant, bigoted, sexist or homophobic language in your workplace–if your company does, then you need to move immediately if you can (check out our career center).

Although I don’t recommend this in most cases, I’ve seen how people can have some fun with this kind of thing–we’ve received several “outraged” e-mails from bigots who were probably signed up for our e-mail newsletter by coworkers.

One last point: Be careful of extremists. There are people who hold intense opinions (from every perspective) and use their “views” as a way to be certain in an uncertain world. I get hate mail from many extremes. With the exception of confronting people who are threatening violence, I leave them alone. I believe in the old adage: “Never try to teach a pig to sing–it’s a waste of time and annoys the pig.”

That’s not to say that you can’t turn the pig into pork chops. I heard a great story from a CEO. During his time as a regional vice president, his customer counterpart made an overt racist action against one of his team’s members in a sales meeting. The future CEO took action by refusing to do business with this company (despite short-lived internal pressure to the contrary). The word spread about the racist incident, the racist was fired and the companies went on to do business together.

The post Ask the White Guy: How Do You Respond to Offensive Language at the Office? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Editor’s Note: This column was written previous to the Advertising Age story. 

Question:

Will the LPGA English-only rule backfire? Isn’t it racist at some level, and don’t Fortune 500 companies shy away from these kinds of anti-diversity policies?

Answer:

Thank you for your e-mail. Last month, the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) announced that tournament players would have to be “effective” in English. There have been no written guidelines announced, no definition of “effective,” and there is nothing about this subject on the LPGA web site.

LPGA Commissioner Carolyn Bivens was hired in 2005 and is the first woman to have that role in the LPGA’s 58-year history. Prior to being LPGA commissioner, Bivens was a senior executive at one of the world’s largest advertising-agency conglomerates.

One of Bivens’ primary responsibilities is developing revenue–mostly from tournament sponsorships and ad revenue generated by television and web viewership.

Most of the LPGA’s media audience–and certainly the most wealthy audience and the one that advertisers will pay the most to reach–is American. For the 2008 season, 70 percent of LPGA tournaments are scheduled in the United States (25 out of 36). However, non-Americans won 77 percent of the 26 tournaments held so far this year, and 27 percent of the tournaments were won by Asian players.

This year, the country with the largest representation of winners is Korea, with four winning players. The United States only has three. Some of this year’s non-American players, including Yani Tseng of Taiwan and InBee Park of South Korea, are already proficient in English–but other non-American players are not.

Asian players, particularly Korean players, are a growing trend. According to Tees2Green.com, “Se Ri Pak was the only South Korean on the LPGA Tour in 1998, when she inspired a nation with her victory in the U.S. Women’s Open. Now, there are 45 players from South Korea on tour–two of them won majors this year–and 121 international players representing 26 countries.”

Although nobody at the LPGA has commented on this, I think you can make the case that it’s tough to get sponsorship money if the winner of the tournament that your company sponsors can’t say much more than a couple of words in English.

“This is an American tour,” said Kate Peters, executive director of the LPGA State Farm Classic. “It is important for sponsors to be able to interact with players and have a positive experience.”

“American” is an interesting way to describe it. Is it really American if the tour is international and most of the winners aren’t American citizens? I’d assume that the LPGA feels that their mostly white-American audience can’t really bond with non-English-speaking winners, and in turn, sponsors and advertisers will shy away.

Regardless, this wasn’t the way to resolve the situation. I think you can absolutely make the case that this “effective” English policy is racist–it clearly targets Korean players.

The only comment from the LPGA I could find was: “We have been puzzled, if not surprised, by some of the reactions,” said deputy commissioner Libba Galloway, who previously was the LPGA’s top attorney. “We see this as a pro-international move.”

“Puzzled?” “Surprised?” Not anticipating this kind of reaction indicates a very sheltered management team. Even if Commissioner Bivens was surprised, sending a subordinate in to take the heat isn’t a confidence-inspiring move.

So, yes, I think this is going to backfire badly on the LPGA. There is no sign that the organizational knowledge to navigate this difficult and complex situation is in place. There is nothing about this situation on the LPGA’s web site nor is anything about diversity on the LPGA web site 

The post LPGA Is Wrong in Its English-Only Stance appeared first on DiversityInc.

Question:
Is “people of color” the right terminology to describe a diverse population?

Answer:
In my opinion, “people of color” is an effective way to describe non-white people in the United States. One can correctly argue that “white” people are people of color, or that some Latinos are white; however, unless the goal is to endlessly argue semantics, it’s more useful to use a common phrase to describe people who are commonly thought of as not being white by the white majority in this country.

“People of color” is a respectful-sounding phrase, it’s in common use, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used the phrase “citizens of color” in his 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech.

Ultimately, I think we must all recognize that the conversation revolves around imaginary differences. There is only one human race and we are all originally from Africa. That’s not a concept that the majority in any culture gives into easily, however, so I think there’s much to be gained by using a simple and well-recognized phrase that everyone can understand.

I want to point out that in the almost ten years of publishing DiversityInc, I’ve heard endless arguments from progressive people about nomenclature. It’s tiresome, boring and counterproductive. You can call it diversity or inclusion or popcorn—as soon as the bigots figure out the code, they’re going to denigrate the word. By sticking to standard phraseology, we keep the discussion pointed towards progress rather than log rolling ourselves into irrelevance.

The post Is ‘People of Color’ Offensive? appeared first on DiversityInc.