Article criticism: Employment discrimination in the ethnically diverse workplace
Abstract
Ethnic and race discrimination has characterized most organizational contexts in the global arena. Vertical and horizontal segregation based on ethnic and racial affiliation is common. In the midst of high voices calling for equality and non-discriminative employment, promotion, transfer and demotions, everyday actions in organizations imply otherwise. Tanya Kateri Hernandez on her article “Employment discrimination in the ethnically diverse workplace,” which was done in conjunction with Fordham Law School, archive of scholarship and history, offers a brief review of how race and ethnicity has always been used to discriminate in the opportunities that are available in the workplace set up. In disagreement with most of the aspects that are cited to form basis in the article, this paper offers a systematic criticism. Systematic criticism entails refuting the used concepts, which premise the topic in the article. Subsequently, alternative concepts that offer the same solutions are suggested. The introduction part of the paper offers a general overview of Tanya’s article on ethnic discrimination in the workplace. The ideologies that are used by the author of the article are briefly mentioned to be criticized in the body of the paper. The body of the paper carries a systematic criticism of individual aspects in the article. In criticizing, the use of common workplace observations and known hypotheses are utilized rather than applying any qualitative research findings. In the Conclusion part of the criticism paper, a suggestion of alternative concepts and ideologies that give the same explanation on the topic, are offered. Criticism of the scholarly article is meant to provide a different point of view of ethnic-based discrimination in the workplace. Analyzing the topic from different point of views allows a better comprehension and appreciation of the underlying reasons.
Introduction
Globalization and the latest organizational developments have brought with it tremendous changes in the organizations’ picture and especially the human resource departments. Contemporary Human resource departments are characterized with increased diversity. Cultural and ethnic diversity is one conspicuous characteristic, which is worth noting. On the article, Tanya cites from the onset that racial advancement and integration has elicited a war between different ethnic affiliations, rather than reducing the long existing controversy (Avery et al., 2008). Antagonism from both sides, which are fueled by competition for scarce resources and opportunities, drives ethnic discrimination in the diverse workplace. Traditional racism and ethnicity that existed between the blacks and white Americans is used to initiate the widespread vice that continue to characterize the workplace in the 21st century. In the American workplace context, different ethnic sub-groups are allegedly known to champion discrimination. Such discrimination is common between Puerto Ricans who are alleged to discriminate against Mexican Americans and Dominicans or white Latinos who are alleged to discriminate against Afro-Latinos. The author mentions that charges of discrimination take place in the workplace despite the existing Supreme Court precedent that ruled against such discriminations. However, Contemporary interethnic discrimination is said to be clouded by presumably diverse workplace, which undermines the effectiveness of the Supreme Court precedent. In the reputing the effectiveness of the Supreme Court precedence to prevail over the workplace diversity, the article cites that legal actors automatically view ethnic diverse workplace as equivalent to a racially harmonious one. Equating racial diversity to racial harmony in the workplace ignores the aspect of historical ethnicity, which is the determinant feature of the vice. The issue that forms the central idea of the article is the judicial fashioning of presumed diversity in the workplace as an aspect, which automatically discourages workplace discrimination (Hernandez, 2010).
In the article, various study findings from qualitative researches are used to argue against discrimination based on national origin. Apart from the traditional presumed discrimination that has been popularized, widespread non-conspicuous discrimination among the Latino subgroups exist. Among the mechanisms that are suggested to control ethnicity and discrimination in the workplace, is the Multiracial Racism Litigation Approach (MRLA). Because of the mismatch between the real ethnic issues in the workplace and the information that is contained by the judicial judges and administrators, appropriate litigation process is impossible. Therefore, the professor’s recommendation on her article is that judges should be supplied with empirical information showing racial bias in multicultural workplace contexts. She argues that this will enable the enforcement of civil rights laws within diverse workplace. According to the article, the main element that fuels ethnicity in the contemporary workplace is the misinterpretation of the real issues by the judicial administrators and misguided legal view of the discrimination by the administrators of justice (Hernandez, 2010). Because of this aspect, the professor argues that fighting discrimination has been crippled by various limiting factors that are accompanying. Although the quoted findings. Although the various elements that are used by the scholar to advance her topic in the article raise genuine concerns, which deserve deliberation for better understanding by various affected and interested groups, they lack an in-depth research and analysis; it cannot be relied upon by its users (Ferner et al., 2005).
Criticizing the article
Because of the issue of ethnic discrimination is real and a major vice in the present-day workplace, an objective study should be conducted to obtain the necessary data that inform drawing of appropriate conclusions. Using the aspects that are cited by the author of the article to conclude that interethnic discrimination remain in the workplace because of institutional incompetence to fight the vice is narrow and, therefore, is imprudent. Such aspects under criticism are as follows:
(i). Judicial incompetence to fight discrimination
It is wrong to assert that a competent judicial body as the one in the United States, bases its conclusions and judgment on hypothetical premises. First, individual cases that are administered through the U.S. justice system are each given the attention and adjudication it deserves. Therefore, Reported cases of ethnic-based workplace discrimination are each handled with their individual merits. Secondly, any single judge that gives a judgment must convince himself of particular underlying factors before deciding on any case. The citation of this aspect by the professor on her article, therefore, is subjective and incredible. Before making such a substantial allegation about a respected institution of the U.S. department of justice caliber, the distinguished professor should have undertaken some quantitative or qualitative research and include some of the findings in the article (Sanchez & Brock, 1996). It is common sense for the judge to seek particular answers on certain cases rather than rely on some empirical study findings, which were done by other external parties. Dispensing justice appropriately forms the fundamental principles of every practicing judge and, therefore, they are free to exercise whatever is in their power to enable the objective conclusion to be drawn and subsequently, a fair judgment (Avery et al., 2008).
(ii). Focusing too much on skin color
The article states that focusing on the traditional black and white ethnic discrimination is another reason for the widespread interethnic discrimination in the workplace. Although the emergence of other powerful ethnic groups in the American society has an impact on interethnic discrimination, the conclusion that criticizes the use of skin color basis is not exhaustively reliable. Whereas the study of ethnicity based on national affiliations is necessary, using the traditional black and white skin color to infer that racial discrimination took place is still valid and has provided premises that are used to decide on various cases. It is true that the administrators of justice should be conversant to the demographic changes that take place to enable the management of the menace, but pointing at the focus of skin color as the cause of racial discrimination in the workplace, cannot suffice to be cited as the causal factor (Hernandez, 2010). Majority of study findings report that skin color is still used by the perpetrators of ethnic discrimination against their victims. A survey reveals that being white skinned in America increases one’s chances of socioeconomic success and being black skinned, on the other hand, reduces the probability of attaining socioeconomic success. Using the survey, an objective argument that skin color still ranks the highest on the causal elements of universal interethnic discrimination can be deduced (Sanchez & Brock, 1996).
(iii). Ineffectiveness of Supreme Court set precedence
In the Supreme Court ruling on Castaneda v Partida, the judge cited that the absence of diversity suggests that ethnic discrimination is present and that increased diversity undermines interethnic discrimination (Hernandez, 2010). The judge could have been guided by the rationality that increased numbers is a source of strength and voice and reduced numbers, on the other hand, makes the team weak and vulnerable. The strength of such a guiding rationality was completely ignored by the writer of the article. Prof. Tanya has a valid point on refuting that diversity cannot guarantee ethnic harmony in the workplace context. However, by completely ruling out the aspect of reduced discrimination with the increase of diversity is wrong and, therefore, misguiding. A variety of aspects that form the premises for main arguments in the article weakens the credibility that such documents should have (Avery et al., 2008).
Conclusion
Ethnic discrimination in the contemporary American workplace still exists. What is more, the consequences of such a vice affect negatively on some societal groups, while unfairly elevating others. Stopping the menace or rather reducing it to manageable levels is of fundamental importance to the whole society. Fighting the vice starts with the necessary research studies, which aim to explore the real issues that motivate ethnic discrimination (Ogbonna & Harris, 2006). Obtaining objective data from the ground enable sound decisions and conclusions on particular course of actions, which address the real needs that a situation presents. Appropriate action naturally reduces the severity of a disaster at hand and allows for eventual breakthrough. Obtaining the objective data from the workplace settings entails the design of a suitable research plan, which captures all the necessary parameters and unique aspects of the problem (Roth, 2010). For the issue at hand, structured questionnaire and interview questions are the proper tool. Certain workplace settings that possess the merits to become the representative of the larger population are randomly sampled. Effectively structuring questionnaire and interview questions is imperative to enable all the required aspects to be recorded. Interview questions should be appropriate, while at the same time incorporating all the desired elements, which are used to premise further deliberations and decisions. Perhaps, Professor Tanya could be asked to go back to the field, gather the necessary data, and compile a report.
References
Hernandez, T. K. (2010). Employment Discrimination in the Ethnically Diverse Workplace. Judges J., 49, 33.
Roth, W. D. (2010). Racial Mismatch: The Divergence Between Form and Function in Data for Monitoring Racial Discrimination of Hispanics*. Social Science Quarterly, 91(5), 1288- 1311.
Ferner, A., Almond, P., & Colling, T. (2005). Institutional theory and the cross-national transfer of employment policy: The case of ‘workforce diversity’in US multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 304-321.
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2006). The dynamics of employee relationships in an ethnically diverse workforce. Human Relations, 59(3), 379-407.
Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. (1996). Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic employees: is diversity management a luxury or a necessity?. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 704-719.
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. (2008). What are the odds? How demographic similarity affects the prevalence of perceived employment discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 235.
