Abstract
While it might be pleasant to think that racism and discrimination (especially the workplace) are becoming a thing of the past, the simple truth is that racism and discriminatory practices in employment are still quite common in the United States today. This paper examines this issue, looking at a number of factors involved. It starts by examining the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It considers the way that this act has influenced workplace policies in corporations, and the degree to which it has been effective. Following also considers the ways in which Title VII has not been fully effective. Next, we will look at the motivations behind discriminatory actions and practices in the workplace. The theories propounded by a number of experts in psychology and sociology will be evaluated. Certainly, the underlying psychological factors that cause prejudice, discrimination and associated discriminatory practices need to be understood before the problem can be solved.
Introduction
In part because of the new laws and regulations regarding racial discrimination(such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act), most employers have been an effort in recent decades to ensure that their workplace is free of any discrimination based on an individual's race, color, religion, ethnicity or sex. However, racial discrimination in employment in the United States has been a long-standing problem that has yet to be entirely solved. 76% of working ethnic minorities have reported at least one incident of racial discrimination or race-based behavior in the last two years (Schneider et al., 2000, p. 718).
Racial discrimination can have a very serious impact, including an effect on the workers physical and psychological well-being, as well as his or her effectiveness on the job (Forman, 2003, p. 351). The following essay will examine racial discrimination in the workplace in the United States, considering both the organizational and individual factors that tend to increase the chance that racial discrimination will have. It will also look to the effect that this discrimination has on the individuals in question and on the organizations for which they work.
The Legal Aspects of Racial Discrimination
Clear protections against racial discrimination in the workplace were laid out in the Civil Rights Act of 1964/1991, specifically in the Title VII provisions that forbid any employers with more than 15 employees from discriminating in their employment practices based on race, national origin, color, sex, or religion. As a part of enforcing these provisions, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) was created to investigate instances of discrimination in the workplace.
With regard to racial discrimination specifically, Title VII makes it clear that employers cannot refuse to hire individuals because of their race (either real or perceived), physical features that may be race related (skin color or hair), relationships or associations with others of a specific race or because of the employer's views about a particular race. While these measures were originally enacted for the protection of ethnic and racial minorities, they extend to other protected groups and as well.
In addition to direct discrimination, Title VII also forbids the implementation of structural employment practices that discriminate against a specific racial group. Namely, an employer cannot discriminate in how they go about recruiting, hiring, promoting or retaining their employees. However, research has demonstrated that discriminatory practices still exist in the workplace and appear in many forms. For instance, one study found that during an initial evaluation of resumes, applicants were placed at a significant disadvantage if the evaluator felt their name was that of an African-American (Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2004, p. 1013). Researchers came to this determination after sending 1300 resumes (for individuals all with identical qualifications) to employers who had advertised positions. Researchers simply changed the name of the applicant to one that might be perceived as African-American (such as Jamaal James or Deion Johnson).
These researchers found that applicants with names that sounded white had a 50% greater chance of being called in by an employer for an interview. Researchers also adjusted the quality of the resumes, and found that high quality applicants perceived as white had a 30% greater chance of being called in for an interview then low quality White applicants. However, high quality African-American applicants had only an 8% greater chance of being called in for an interview than quality African-American applicants. The results of this study clearly suggests that racial discrimination is likely to occur during both the hiring and recruitment process, thus making it difficult for minorities to make their knowledge, experience and abilities clear to potential employees.
Promotion decisions are also frequently affected by racial discrimination. Research carried out 2005 revealed that white employees were more likely to get a higher performance rating from White supervisors then were African-American employees (Stauffer & Buckley, 2005, p. 590). An interesting side note of this study was that Black supervisors also seem to favor white employees over African-American ones in these evaluations. It should be noted that while this study seems to demonstrate clear discrimination in black employee ratings, the precise reason for this bias is not proven in this research.
Furthermore, statistics have shown that over an early three-year time span of their career, African-American workers (with virtually identical credentials to their white coworkers) had a 33% greater chance of being fired from their jobs than said white employees (Wilson, 2005, p. 1189). Given that the unemployment rate for African Americans is already considerably higher than it is for whites or Latinos, this is a serious problem. The following graphic helps to illustrate this.
Another area in which title VII prohibits discrimination is in employee compensation, benefits and work assignments. While wage inequity based on race has diminished over time, there are still significant problems. Examining all working adults in the United States, one study showed that the average white male in the United States earns 30% more than the average African-American male and nearly twice as much is the average African-American female (Kim, 2007, p. 79). Even taking into account other factors that might influence an employee's earnings, such as educational level, marital status, part-time employment, etc.) there was still a 30% wage gap between racial groups. In addition to this, such wage gaps seem to grow greater over time. Over a ten-year period, this kind of wage discrimination may may mean a loss of earnings amounted to 15% of their total (Gottschalk, 1997, p. 29). The following more recent data from 2013 regarding retail workers tends to support the above.
Another feature Title VII is that it prohibits employers from any segregation of their employees based on their race. They also cannot specify specific types of work for employees based on their race. For instance, choosing to isolate Asian employees (either geographically or physically within the building) from customers or other employees would be a violation of Title VII.
Finally, Title VII also makes it clear that employers cannot retaliate against any employees who file complaints about discrimination (either on their own behalf or on behalf of another employee). Retaliation comes in a number of possible forms, including firing employees who file claims of discrimination or refusing to hire someone because they have file reports. Other retaliatory tactics can include damaging job references, negative and inaccurate performance evaluations or refusing such employees promotions.
However, despite the provisions laid out in Title VII, in 2008 alone EEOC received more than 30,000 claims of retaliation resulting from reporting of discrimination by employees. Such retaliation can cause significant harm to the employers themselves, including creating a poisonous and distrustful workplace environment, financial costs for resulting from reduced business, legal liabilities and diminished worker morale (Solano & Kleiner, 2003, p. 210).
It should be noted that such discriminatory acts are prohibited regardless of whether the acts were intended to cause the individual harm. Furthermore, title VII makes clear that there are two types of racial discrimination: disparate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate treatment refers to situations in which individuals receive different treatment because of race. Disparate impact refers to situations in which workplace practices or policies have an unnecessarily negative impact on a protected group (such as people of a particular race). This could include policies against having long hair, which would affect those whose religious beliefs require men to have long hair (French, 2003, p. 102).
Subsequent rulings have also made it clear that the creation of a racially hostile work environment through racial discrimination against customers was also a violation of Title VII because it made employees of that same race uncomfortable (Chew & Kelly, 2006, p. 84). In a workplace context, racial harassment is defined as differential treatment based on race that creates a negative and even hostile work environment (Harrick & Sullivan, 1995, p. 81). Such harassment can take the form of being excluded from work-related social events and activities or being subjected to racial slurs/jokes and race-based derogatory comments.
Psychological Aspects of Racial Discrimination
A number of different researchers (Smith, 2002; Cantor, 1977) have indicated in their work that individuals that are members of a majority group are motivated to protect their privileges and power. One of the principal ways of doing this is to exclude otherwise capable individuals from a different racial group. This means that certain racial group's privileges will differ from those of the majority group because of racial discrimination. This works to the detriment of the minority group. In other words, the many benefits enjoyed by the majority group in a discriminatory workplace situation (such as higher wages, greater opportunities for advancement, etc.) are either limited or unavailable to the group discriminated against.
Members of majority group may do or say things that are discriminatory because of feelings of mistrust of minority groups or because of a conscious dislike of those minorities. At the same time, workers may also discriminate because of organizational or institutional policies or pressures, even if they themselves have no personal animus toward minorities. In such cases, the responsibility for the discrimination lies with the organization, not individual.
While most of us are easily able to recognize a malicious or intentional act of racial discrimination, it should be noted that differential treatment is not always a consequence of an obviously harmful or discriminatory action. In fact, although subtle behavioral, environmental or verbal racial insults (referred to as micro-aggressions) are not directly referenced in Title VII, they are often a part of racial harassment in the modern world (Sue et al., 2007, p. 272). Individuals facing micro-aggression in the workplace experience countless small injuries on a daily basis, and the cumulative effect can be extremely damaging. However, because these tiny discriminatory acts can be blamed away or excused individually, it is often difficult to confirm that rampant discrimination is occurring. This is one of the reasons that most incidents of racial discrimination in the workplace go unreported. Nevertheless, the following shows the percentages of charges filed by the EEOC with regard to workplace discrimination.
Racial discrimination in the modern workplace can also be a result of unconscious stereotyping and prejudice. A number of researchers have confirmed that many people unconsciously have stereotypes about minorities and that it can affect their behavior or decisions without their knowing (Greenwald et al., 2002, p. 19). This is particularly case for individuals who grew up among others (such as friends or family members) who held strongly racist viewpoints. This kind of unconscious prejudice reflects an internal bias (negative feelings) toward members of a specific group, frequently a racial minority (Allport, 1954, p. 35). On the other hand, a stereotype is defined as a specific belief about the characteristics of an overall group (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996, p. 238). For example, a prejudiced individual might believe stereotypes that Asians are all smart, Scottish people are all greedy and African-Americans are all lazy.
Research has indicated that most forms of discrimination spring from an individual's deeply held prejudices and stereotypes (Dovidio, 2002, p. 67). Furthermore, people adhering stereotypical thinking often tend to exaggerate the differences between their group and a minority group, while minimizing any similarities (Smith, 2002, p. 528). This helps them to emphasize in their own mind their own perceived superiority over the minority group. As a consequence, it can be very difficult to change an individual's mind regarding the stereotypes and prejudices they cling to. Ultimately, these feelings can result in discriminatory employment practices (Fiske & Lee, 2008, p. 52). Interestingly, this feeling of superiority over others parentheses particularly over minorities) often has little to do with the individual's actual accomplishments or position in life.
Frequency of Racial Discrimination
In spite of the aforementioned laws regarding termination in the workplace, it continues to be a major problem across the United States. The tens of thousands of complaints that the EEOC receives on a yearly basis are believed to represent only a tiny fraction of those cases of discrimination that actually occur. Experts believe the vast majority of cases go unreported. Given the fact (as mentioned above) that discrimination in the workplace is often a consequence of majority groups or members attempted to maintain their status and power within an organization, it is harmless uprising that the vast majority of reported acts of discrimination in the workplace come from ethnic minorities (Berdahl & Moore, 2006, p. 427). Minority students have also reported similar race-based discriminatory practices, with up to 98% of minority/ethnic students reporting a racial harassment incident at least once in the last year (Landrine & Klonoff, 1996, p. 161). Of course, it should be acknowledged that many other groups also face discrimination in the workplace, including women, homosexuals and Muslims.
There are other demographic factors that can affect the likelihood of an individual experiencing racial harassment or discrimination. For instance, gender seems to significantly affect the frequency of such discrimination. Research has shown that minority college women experienced considerably higher rates of racial harassment than minority college men (Swim, 2003, p. 41). This may possibly be a result of the fact that harassing them feel safer harassing women that they men. Conversely, for multiracial or Asian students, a separate study found that men reported considerably higher rates of racial harassment and discrimination than did women (Buchanan et al., 2009, p. 271). The reasons for this latter result are not entirely clear.
For working adults, researching their experience with racial harassment and discrimination has revealed that there are many more reported incidents among men than among women (Krieger et al., 2006, p. 67). Moreover, the racial harassment and discrimination that minority men face in the workplace is usually much more direct and aggressive in nature. Sometimes it is even threatening to them in a physical sense. The seeming contradiction between these two sets of results suggests that further research is needed to clarify the differences between racial harassment and discrimination in a school setting versus a work setting (Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002, p. 121). Other factors that influence the likelihood of workplace racial harassment or discrimination including age, social class and education level (Mclaughlin et al., 2008, p. 97).
Characteristics of Those Who Discriminate
While the above has described some of the various demographic characteristics (such as social class, gender or education level) that influence the likelihood that someone will face racial discrimination in the workplace, it's also important to consider the various characteristics of an individual who will carry out racial harassment or discrimination against someone else. Obviously, some individuals are going to be more biased against minority racial than our other individuals. It's also no surprise that such individual are much more likely to carry out acts of racial discrimination. The particular region, community or culture one comes from can also influence the degree of racism one feels and the target against
For instance, an experiment carried out in 2005 found that those individuals with high levels of unconscious racism would (when authorities gave them justification to discriminate) rate African-American participants more negatively than with those with a lower level of unconscious racism (Ziegert and Hanges, 2005, p. 562). Research also demonstrated that individuals who did discriminate in their decisions often provided nonracial excuses for those decisions. This was particularly true of those who had a high degree of racial prejudice. Whether these excuses were designed to alleviate guilt unlikely) or cover up discrimination so that outsiders would not recognize it is uncertain.
Conclusion
In spite of the provisions of the Title VII section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which were intended to encourage large organizations of all types to eliminate discrimination in the workplace based on race, ethnicity, sex, and religion, racial harassment and discrimination continues to persist in workplaces throughout the United States. Moreover, these discriminatory practices have a very negative impact on the targets of discrimination, their current coworkers and the organization of which they are all a part. Unquestionably, an organization's ability to minimize or eliminate discriminatory practices and actions in the workplace, as well is to manage and encourage diversity in the workplace, can only be beneficial in the long run to that organization. In fact, organizations that are able to effectively encourage workplace diversity and fully integrate various races and ethnicities into the workplace environment enjoy a number of significant benefits, including greater employee productivity, enhanced ability to recruit high-quality employees and improved employee retention levels (Loden & Rosenor, 1991, p. 214). But accomplishing this goal requires that an organization have a clearly laid out plan for doing so
References
Allport, G. W., & Mazal Holocaust Collection. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Bertrand, M. & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 991-1013.
Buchanan, N. T., Bergman, M. E., Bruce, T. A., Woods, K. C., & Lichty, L. F. (2009). Unique and joint effects of sexual and racial harassment on college students’ well- being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 267-285.
Buchanan, N. T. & Ormerod, A. J. (2002). Racialized sexual harassment in the lives of African American Women. Women & Therapy, 25, 107-124.
Chew, P. K. & Kelley, R. E., (2006). Unwrapping racial harassment law. Berkley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 27, 49-110.
Dovidio. J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62-68.
Fiske, S. T. & Lee, T. L. (2008). Stereotypes and prejudice create workplace discrimination. In A. P. Brief (Ed.), Diversity at work. Cambridge companions to management (pp. 13-52). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Forman, T. A. (2003). The social psychological costs of racial segmentation in the workplace: A study of African Americans' well-Being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 332- 352.
French, L. A. (2003). Native American Justice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Gottschalk, Peter, "Inequality, Income Growth and Mobility: The Basic Facts," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Spring 1997, 11:2, 21-40.
Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S.(2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self- concept. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 3-25.
Hilton, J. L., & von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 237-271.
Kim, M. (2007). Race and Economic Opportunity in the Twenty-First Century, London: Routledge.
Krieger, N., Waterman, P. D., Hartman, C., Bates, L. M., Stoddard, A., Quinn, M. M., Sorenson, G., & Barbeau, E. M. (2006). Social hazards on the job: Workplace abuse, sexual harassment and racial discrimination—A study of Black Latino, and White low-income women and men workers in the United States. International Journal of Health Services, 36, 51-85.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The Schedule of Racist Events: A measure of racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 144-168.
Loden, M., & Rosener, J. B. (1991). Workforce America! Managing employee diversity as a vital resource. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin
McLaughlin, H., Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2008). Social class and workplace harassment during the transition to adulthood. Social class and transitions to adulthood. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 119, 85–98
Schneider, K. T., Hitlan, R. T., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2000). An examination of the nature and correlates of ethnic harassment experiences in multiple contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 3-12.
Solano, F. & Kleiner, B. H. (2003). Understanding and preventing workplace retaliation. Management Research News, 26(2-4), 206-211
Stauffer, J. M., & Buckley, M. R. (2005). The existence and nature of racial bias in supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 586-591.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial micro-aggressions in everyday life. American Psychologist, 62, 271-286.
Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., Fitzgerald, D. C., & Bylsma, W. H. (2003). African American college student’s experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and responses to these incidents. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 38-67.
Wilson, G. (2005). Race and job dismissal: African American/White differences in their sources during the early work career. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 1182-1199.
Ziegert, J. C. & Hanges, P. J. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes, motivation, and a climate for racial bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 553-562.
