[First Name Last Name]
Introduction
The given case study of Cracker Barrel Restaurant demonstrates an instance of prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation that has become a common occurrence within the workplaces all around the globe. Discriminatory practices such as prejudiced hiring/firing, promotions, and unfair work practices have often been observed in organizations. People are being discriminated every day on the basis of their religion, ethnicities, sexual orientation, races, and gender; however, it is rarely found explicitly written into an organizational policy. Nonetheless, Cracker Barrel Restaurant became the first American employer that clearly prohibited the employment of the gay and lesbian individual in its operating units with the validation that their sexual orientation could be detrimental to their job performance and also injurious to their corporate standing.
The case of Cracker Barrel Restaurant specifically demonstrates how prejudice and discrimination stem from the personal partialities and predispositions of an individual decision-maker and these type of discrimination require thoughtful considerations and resolutions. The controversy remained unsolved even after decades and post severe criticism for its discriminatory policies of the business. The case gives us an understanding of the fact that workplaces are increasingly becoming diverse and are required to be more sensitive, as well as, open towards the diverse individualities of every group of people. As failing to do so may lead towards grave challenges of discrimination and racism.
Discussion
The case is all about the Crack Barrel Restaurant, which was founded in 1969 when a 34-year-old oil jobber and an ex-marine sergeant Dan Evin took an advantage of capitalizing on the traffic that passed through the proximate interstate highway and decided to open a restaurant alongside a fuel station and a gift shop in Lebanon - Tennessee. Crack Barrel Restaurant become instantly profitable due to its delicious offerings and low prices. Since then the restaurant chain kept on expanding and operates 620 stores in more than 42 states. Crack Barrel Restaurant was the true success story of its origin. It was well-known for its effective authoritative management and highly centralized corporate culture. Crack Barrel always maintained uniformity in its menu offerings, store designs, and functional procedures. It always keeps up offering a homey, spacious, and low-priced country style meal options that were served by its efficient and courteous staff.
Although the franchise operations of Crack Barrel Restaurant were a true representation of uniformity in all aspects it does not affect its personnel policies. In 1991, all the operating units received a new policy proclamation from the head office, which asserted to evaluate every existing employee for their sexual orientations. The policy states that the company will only continue with the individual who are heterosexual. The individual managers were asked to conduct a one-to-one interview to evaluate every employee. As a result of this policy, Crack Barrel Restaurant straightaway fired 16 individuals in different states without considering their skills, experiences, period of commitment with the business, and their contributions. Facing a severe pressure from the activist groups, the business issued a statement that stated, ‘to hire people who are skilled and can offer quality performance’; however, it was not an explicit retraction of its policy and additionally none of the employees who were discriminatingly fired were rehired. After some time, although the company accepted to hire non-heterosexual individuals, it maintained its antagonism in a way that it only consent to hire gays and lesbian individuals majorly at its urban locations as they believe that it could cause problem the local communities. This shows that the Crack Barrel did not uphold the uniformity in its personnel policies and discriminated on the basis of their sexual preferences (Whitley, Bernard & Mary Kite n.d.).
The case shows only one instance when people are discriminated for their individualities. But the dilemma is that it is happening all around us. Ranging from the behavior of products and laws to practice, every individual is experiencing prejudice and discrimination at some level. Stereotyping and prejudice are the factors that work in the favor of one but works against the other and therefore, resultant is the social inequality and injustice. One major instance that depicts this situation is of some retail products that are found to be chauvinistic/racist in a way that they either positively or negatively, or consciously or unconsciously refers to the feeling and attitude that people advocate about any other group of people. For instance, mammy dolls are often perceived to be racist as they motivated the discrimination factor towards the African Americans in the past. Retail products are alleged to be racial as they often promote the negativity against a certain group of people. As in the case of mammy dolls, they were taken to be discriminatory as they foster the earlier image of black women who used to be usually slaves and worked as nannies. Therefore, products that depict extreme positivity or negativity towards a particular group of people are considered to be racist.
Another factor that catches our attention is the influence of prejudice of one group to another group. In fact, the definition of prejudice elucidates the fact, which states that prejudice deal with all the factors that persuade an individual to develop an inference and suppositions that either favor or disfavor on an individual or a group of people over another individual or a group. The prejudice that arises from personal biases may culminate and work as a prognosticator of the discrimination against the other group. For instance, if a particular group will keep on receiving prejudicial behavior, they tend to develop negativity against them and then it tends to multiply. Moreover, the biases always involve two counterparts, the one who is being favored and the other who is being surpassed, which actually result in the development of prejudice among those groups. For instance, if the group of non-heterosexual people would discriminate gays and lesbian as in the case of Crack Barrel, both lesbian and gay would develop a prejudice against them in return. However, if only gays would be discriminated over lesbian then gays would develop a prejudice against both lesbians and heterosexual people (Whitley, Bernard & Mary Kite n.d.).
The last factor to be discussed is the case is the reversal of Crack Barrels corporate policy and after almost decades of defiance, the public relation managers are faced with a challenge of presenting it to media. While considering the facts, the public relation representative demonstrates and represent the corporate standing and positioning of a business association and express its targets and authority over existing issues of pertinence fundamentally to the media. Public relations adds to the way a business is seen by impacting the media and keeping up healthy relations with partners. Particular disciplines of public relations include financial public relationship and internal communication. Therefore, in order to represent the change in media, public relation managers should focus on developing and overseeing relations with the individuals who impact an association or individual’s groups of onlookers in order to have a focal part of doing public relations. After public relations have been working in the field, they aggregate a rundown of relationships that turn into a benefit particularly for those in media relations. Inside every order, run of the mill exercises incorporate reputation occasions, talking opportunities, public statements, bulletins, online journals, social networking, press packs, and outbound correspondence to individuals from the press (Whitley, Bernard & Mary Kite n.d.).
Conclusion
The given contextual study of Cracker Barrel Restaurant shows an example of partiality and discrimination, which explains the instance of sexual introduction that has recently turned into a typical event inside the working environments. It concludes that prejudicial practices have been inspected frequently at modern workplaces and individuals are being victimized each day on the premise of their religion, ethnicities, sexual introduction, races, and sex. The instance of Cracker Barrel Restaurant particularly shows how bias and partiality come from the individual prejudices and inclinations of individual beliefs and these kinds of segregation require mindful contemplations and resolutions. The case gives us a comprehension understanding that working environments are progressively getting to be assorted and are in this manner required to be more delicate and open towards the differing distinctions of every individuals or group of people as neglecting to do as such may lead towards grave difficulties of prejudice and bigotry.
Work Cited
Whitley, Bernard, and Mary Kite. The psychology of prejudice and discrimination. Cengage Learning, 2009. Web. June 6, 2016
