Question:
You’ve expressed your doubts that reverse discrimination exists, White Guy, but in this medium-sized factory, hourly workers aspiring to leadership positions are trained to parrot the following sentence, when asked: “All else being equal, we should always promote the woman or minority first.” Your comments, please.

Answer:
I will not comment on your allegations of what people are “trained to parrot” at your workplace as I have no firsthand knowledge of that.

However, I will point out for most U.S. companies, decisions are regularly based on race and gender; if you aren’t a white man, you aren’t considered. This accounts for the representation in most corporate boards and executive committees. It also accounts for billions of dollars spent on lawyers and settlements. In the past 10 years, there has been more than $1 billion handed down on race and gender court-case settlements, billions more spent on outside council, further billions on out-of-court settlements, and hundreds of additional billions lost in market cap due to headline fatigue.

Aside from exposure to liabilities, there are many business-case reasons to have a succession plan that considers diversity. One simple business reason is based on recruitment and retention. Data obtained in the DiversityInc Top 50 competition demonstrates a link between representation, recruitment and retention. If you don’t have “them,” it’s difficult to recruit “them” and almost impossible to retain “them.”

Considering the changing makeup of the labor force, if selecting a woman and/or person of color will help you recruit and retain, the woman and/or person of color is more valuable than yet another white guy, as they will help you recruit and retain the work force that exists. This is especially true if your workplace is like the overwhelming majority of workplaces and looks very white and very male at the top.

There are other reasons to select for diversity, including the diversity of approaches that different people will bring to the table and the connection to the extremely diverse marketplace that exists today. Here’s a simple analogy: Let’s say you’re planning to renovate your bathroom but have nothing but hammers in your toolbox. It isn’t going to help you renovate the bathroom if you buy another hammer, even if they’re on sale..

The post Should Promotions Go to Women and People of Color First? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Question:
A situation I have always wondered about is the preponderance of companies that have instituted work-force diversity programs and the conflict of “true work-force diversity” with white privilege. Let me explain. White privilege suggests that as a white executive, my children, nieces, nephews are able to benefit from the legacy of white dominance that has helped me (the white executive) benefit in corporate America.

Now introduce work-force diversity. This notion threatens that legacy. My children, nieces and nephews now have to compete with new “diverse” players that I never had to compete with. Note that I’m not white but am using the first person for effect. In any event, as the “White Guy,” tell me your thoughts about this conflict and how the White Guy feels about this.Thanks for your response.

Answer:
Many white people perceive a problem (reverse discrimination), but I don’t think it exists.

Considering our changing demographics and globalizing economy, not considering diversity means that a company is going to draw talent from a decreasing pool. This is a losing proposition. Sustainable organizations incorporate the best talent they can find and effectively engage the marketplace as it exists.

Companies on the DiversityInc Top 50 employ 5 percent of the American work force but 17 percent of college educated people of color. They don’t do this to be nice, they’re hiring the mix of people they feel will best help them deal with their business.

White people have more to fear from working for, supplying or investing in a company that ignores diversity than one that embraces it.

Most white people don’t “get it” because they frame the world through their own filters. That’s why you hear white people say things like “I’m colorblind” or “You’re normal” (as a “compliment” to a non-white/straight/non-disabled person).

All people have their own way of looking at things depending on who they are, but the benefit of being white (and straight and without disabilities) is that you never have to consider someone else’s filters.

Most white people go through a good deal of pain and frustration when they see spots they assumed were “theirs” go to people who don’t look like them. I’d say that many (most?) white people think that most people of color in positions of authority are not qualified to hold them.

In my opinion, this is a byproduct of not wanting to face the truth about why things are the way they are. It rubs against white-guy culture, which takes pride in the opinion that everything is a meritocracy. Just listen to Rush Limbaugh for a few days.

I think I’ll pull myself up by my bootstraps and go get some aspirin.

The post Does Reverse Discrimination Exist? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Question:
Would not “giving” black contractors 2 percent of the available job, reserving that portion for blacks just because they are black, actually be easily understood, clearly defined reverse discrimination? And wouldn’t it also be patronizing, condescending, and unfair? Does it really help those presumed disadvantaged to give them free things solely because of the color of their skin?

Answer:

It seems to have helped white people.

The post Supplier Diversity Is Neither ‘Condescending’ Nor ‘Unfair’ appeared first on DiversityInc.

Question:
How can giving black contractors less than 2 percent of construction contracts be reverse discrimination?

Answer:
It can’t.

“Reverse discrimination” is often the phrase used when white people assumed that all the money/jobs/contracts were theirs to begin with..

The post Supplier Diversity and ‘Reverse Discrimination’ appeared first on DiversityInc.