SURVEY SAYS: Digging Into Diversity Programs

This week, we asked readers if they had any specific diversity programs in place, and whether they seemed to work – or make working “together” more difficult.

The response rate for this week’s survey was admittedly a bit tepid compared with our normal volumes, so that should be factored in to the conclusions drawn.   Still among this week’s respondents, about 36% have some kind of diversity program in place, and about two-thirds of those had some pretty positive things to say about the effort.  

One noted, “We have a strong commitment to diversity.   Our geographic regions are widely diverse and we find that respecting and encouraging diversity enhances our work environment.   It is also an “insurance policy” that the organization will have legal actions taken against it for some of the indiscretion that I read about in the News Dash on a weekly basis, such as the 1.55 MM that a restaurant had to pay because of sexual harassment.”

Another noted, “The company is very diverse.   We all attend diversity classes upon being hired and at least once every 2 years,” while a third said, “We do not have quotas, but rather we place a large emphasis on advertising and recruiting in areas where minorities go to school, seek job assistance and live.   This, along with our desire to create an open work environment, makes it a better place to work.   As a white Anglo Saxon male none of this directly helped me, but it has given me the opportunity to work with and learn from a wide range of people that other companies may well miss out on.”

Another, who had a program that wasn’t living up to hopes, noted, “We have a strong Affirmative Action Plan in place, which, despite our best efforts, fails to get a strong response from the agencies we work with.   (We are lucky to see one response for every 5 jobs we post.)   Our numbers for diversity are OK – could be better.”  

Still, there was little question that the vast majority of this week’s respondents didn’t have any kind of diversity program, albeit for a variety of reasons.   One noted, “I think we talk a good talk, but still have some way to go. I’m in the Midwest and still don’t see people of all colors holding equal positions. We are all still too white, until you leave work and see the diversity outside our doors.”   Many respondents indicated that being a small firm made it hard to be diverse, much less to have a program – and there were situations like this reader’s: “We strive to hire with diversity in mind while also trying to hire the best person for the job.   With that said, our geographical location dictates the candidates that apply or want to apply to our company.   Often times, our applicant population tends to be homogeneous.”  

But most of those without a program also seemed to have a problem with such programs – in fact, nearly all of those without programs in place seemed also to be of the opinion that such programs weren’t helpful (84%).   One noted, “I still find that providing opportunities to anyone because they are a minority of any kind, over and above a non-minority who is more qualified, more experienced, or better suited, only sets the recipient of this advantage up to fail and fails to provide the organization the ‘best’ person for the job.”

Several took issue with race as THE diversifying characteristic.  “Isn’t diversity of thought just as important as diversity in skin color?   What about diversity in ancestry,” observed one .   “What really matters are the thoughts and actions of the people in the college, business, team, or whatever.”   Another echoed that sentiment, “I find it frustrating that for some people diversity only means race. There are so many other measurements that to only focus on one aspect limits how diverse an employer might strive to be.    And some who argue for race only never consider that other groups have suffered from discrimination now & in the past.”   Another said, “Diversity of OPINION, EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND, SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND may be important in the workplace.   But, diversity of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, and race does not necessarily offer any business benefit, and to my knowledge has never been shown to offer any advantage.”  

And then there was the reader who simply noted, “There are no e-mails I delete quicker than internal e-mails from my employer that have “diversity” in the subject line.”

But this week’s Editor’s Choice goes to the reader who observed, “I still agree with the statement ‘everything I need to know, I learned in kindergarten.’ There is never a reason to ask a person the color of his skin… period.”

Thanks to everyone who participated in our survey! 

We are a mfg. company of 130 ees.   We have no special diversity programs in place.   We simply choose the best candidate for the position based on experience and qualifications -- that's it.

As a side note, I know longer fill out any portion of a questionnaire that has to do with race or sex (meaning I leave all those boxes blank).   When we stop monitoring those categories, I personally think we will all be better off.    I think that by keeping these statistics it becomes part of the problem, not the solution.

We don't have a true "diversity" program.   We hire the best candidate based on their qualifications, past experience, etc.  

However, where my husband works, they have what they call a "diversity" program - which has now resulted in the company being 53% minority and higher all the time.   That would be ok - if the candidates were qualified for the job, but most are hired simply because they are minorities - and HR publicizes the fact.

As in all areas involving racial preferences, I still find that providing opportunities to anyone because they are a minority of any kind, over and above a non-minority who is more qualified, more experienced, or better suited, only sets the recipient of this advantage up to fail and fails to provide the organization the "best" person for the job.

In education it is a proven fact that the drop-out rates for minority students given entrance preference is significantly higher than the entire student population and even higher than minorities not given preference.

The result of "diversity", no matter how laudable, must evolve through the absence of discrimination not through un-earned opportunities.

My organization has a Diversity Council, comprised of employees from different departments.

We have a strong commitment to diversity.   Our geographic regions are widely diverse and we find the respecting and encouraging diversity enhances our work environment.   It is also an "insurance policy" that the organization will have legal actions taken against it for some of indiscretion that I read about in the News Dash on a weekly basis, such as the 1.55 MM that a restaurant had to pay because of sexual harassment.

We have an Affirmative Action Plan and calculate the statistics as required by law.   We strive to hire with diversity in mind while also trying to hire the best person for the job.   With that said, our geographical location dictates the candidates that apply or want to apply to our company.   Often times, our applicant population tends to be homogeneous.  

Are employees and supervisors accepting of diversity?    Yes.

I think all of these programs only pay lip service to the idea of diversity.   Programs like Michigan's point system are geared toward one thing, making an organization LOOK diverse.   However, isn't diversity of thought just as important as diversity in skin color?   What about diversity in ancestry?   I am sure with the variety of marriages we have today that there are light skinned people who qualify as "black" under some regulations.   So would a school like Michigan allow that person in?  

What really matters are the thoughts and actions of the people in the college, business, team, or whatever.   I find it interesting that some colleges justify allowing a large number of minority applicants access to a tough school on the basis that such diversity is necessary for students to learn.   If that were true, wouldn't a historically black college be doing its students a disservice if it did not recruit large numbers of light-skinned people to add that valuable "diversity" quota?   And wouldn't it be easy to argue that a school like UC Berkeley could benefit by recruiting a larger number of conservative professors to add "diversity of thought"?  

In my mind, these programs seem to stand for one thing - get a variety of colors, genders, sexual preferences, national origins together....as long as they're LIBERAL.

Okay...I've said my peace....this is anonymous, right?

There are no emails I delete quicker than internal emails from my employer that have "diversity" in the subject line.

I still agree with the statement that "everything I need to know, I learned in kindergarten". There is never a reason to ask a person the color of his skin... period.

Interesting question---

We have such a small office (11 people) I'm not sure this is an issue.   However, having known and worked with most of these people for about 10 years (one of whom is African American), I can't imagine there would be any problem hiring anyone who had the right skills and was qualified for the job!!!

Can't wait to see your other responses!!

I work for a TPA.   Our CEO has always had a commitment to diversity but not at the expense

of qualifications.   Subsequently, because we know whoever is hired for a particular position meets the requirements and then some, there is no resentment that the new hire was to fill a quota or create a particular appearance.

Diversity at our company is way more than race - age, sex, nationality, are also criteria for a diverse work force and we really are a diverse group of employees.

I find it frustrating that for some people diversity only means race. There are so many other measurements that to only focus on one aspect limits how diverse an employer might strive to be.    And some who argue for race only never consider that other groups have suffered from discrimination now & in the past.   In a perfect world we would compete on the basis of our qualifications and the best candidate would win - we aim for that and often we succeed.

I think we talk a good talk, but still have some way to go. I'm in the Midwest and still don't see people of all colors holding equal positions. We are all still too white, until you leave work and see the diversity outside our doors.

I think the Quotas we place on diversity have outlived themselves like Unions.   They served a purpose for the time they were needed.   Now we've simply come to a time where someone else makes a decision, regardless of right of wrong.   Then we claim we didn't know any better.   Personally I don't see how we can say the color of your skin doesn't matter if we only hire you because of the color of your skin.   How can you say this student deserves this college because he's black and we don't want him to be disadvantaged That may block a white student that had no other college option but this one school willing to take the white student due to lack of finances, or worse yet... because they deserved to be there.

And who in their right mind (not the legal system or those dumb companies that made those stupid statements) can say, colleges need to let in 'minorities' to help kids learn about diversity.   Hello!   We live in the most diverse country in the world...

After all, what does affirmative mean?   Yes, positive?   I've done what I need to do to get to this college, job, and now I can't have it because of the color of my skin?

Which is it please?   Will the real affirmative action please stand up?

We do not have a formal diversity program.   As a small business with pretty low turnover, we only hire 4 or 5 people a year.   We try to pick the person who will deliver the best job performance.

This is much easier said than done.   Having things so informal necessarily means that the decisions of the hiring manager will probably be affected by his own personal biases on hundreds of issues.

With the risk of being terribly politically incorrect... We operate on the basis of the best qualified INDIVIDUAL for the job.   What a concept eh?  

A preference for one group is discrimination against another, plain and simple.   We'd come a lot further a lot faster if we stopped placing people into groups (or, more accurately, them placing themselves into groups) and insist on every American citizen being treated as individuals on an equal basis?  

We have a strong Affirmative Action Plan in place, which, despite our best efforts, fails to get a strong response from the agencies we work with.   (We are lucky to see one response for every 5 jobs we post.)   Our numbers for diversity are OK - could be better.   What should be second nature to everyone is just finding people who are qualified for jobs, period.   However, depending upon how closely an interview process occurs after annual AAP results come out, this is not always the emphasized point.

I'm off my soapbox now.  

Have a great day!

Yes, we have programs that promote diversity and I suspect programs that affect hiring.   The company is very diverse.   We all attend diversity classes upon being hired and at least once every 2 years.   I'm colorblind* so it doesn't make it more difficult for me to work together, it makes it more interesting and more fun too. I mean not racially biased - I see color.

Question:   Why is the diversity policy for companies and universities ok, but pandering to special interest groups for politicians is not ok?   It's the same thing.   Whenever you target one group of people to promote, attract or hire, you are simultaneously discriminating against anyone who doesn't fit that profile.   Time and again we are told how bad any kind of profiling is because it usually is used against minority groups and yet that's exactly what they want people to use when it benefits them.   Hypocrisy at it's best.    Just work hard, do your best and compete with everyone else.

Thanks for listening.

In response to your inquiry I would say that we don't have a diverse work force.   We expect everyone to come to work on time, each day, every day.   If you can't convince us that you are capable of that, you aren't offered a job.   Oh -- and to be certain that HR never achieves its hiring requirements, we expect all new applicants to pass a drug test.   If we added race into that equation, we would never have enough people to produce our product.

Discrimination in the workplace is divisive and unacceptable.   Categorizing individuals by race, sex or religion is demeaning to everyone but amplified when accompanied by separate rights and responsibilities.   The Supreme Court's acceptance of the concept of the condition, 'a little bit pregnant' is repulsive but not unexpected.   "Twenty more years?"

I work for one of the largest global law firms.   We do actively seek out minority candidates for all positions.   We do not have quotas, but rather we place a large emphasis on advertising and recruiting in areas where minorities go to school, seek job assistance and live.   This, along with our desire to create an open work environment make it a better place to work.   As a white Anglo Saxon male none of this directly helped me, but it has given me the opportunity to work with and learn from a wide range of people that other companies may well miss out on.

For the University of Michigan I applaud their desire to do the right thing when faced with adversity.   I only wish California would follow their example.   To give some numbers to why this is so important for a law school.   Not counting people of Asian descent, minorities make up about 10% of all attorneys and American Indians are less than 1/4 of 1%.   Less than 3% of partners in national firms are minorities.   Out of the 77 largest firms in NYC, 34 out of the 4400 partners are African American.   All of these numbers are from Lawyers for One America. http://lawyersforoneamerica.org/   Needless to say the legal profession has a long way to go before equality is achieved, and schools like the University of Michigan are one of the best ways to achieve this.

Diversity of OPINION, EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND, SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND may be important in the workplace.

But, diversity of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, and race does not necessarily offer any business benefit, and to my knowledge has never been shown to offer any advantage.   A business should be blind to these things and judge applicants based on "The content of their character rather than the color of their skin."