Does more workplace diversity mean more workplace racism?

I am so appreciative of the support I am getting from my subscribers, pals and those who prefer to remain anonymous. (I respect your reasons.) Quite recently, I had this exchange with one of my readers who reached out to me. It was in response to my most recent “Things I Think About Podcast” which focused on the negative effects of diversity quotas.

I completely agree with ur assessment- however, quotas are going to begin to trickle in all areas of our lives – this was BIG in business years ago. It always amazed me that people aren’t /weren’t always hired because they have/had the skills and qualifications for the job. Where there are quotas, the output and quality of things will be in jeopardy. What’s even a bigger concern for me is when u have an employee that isn’t performing to the level of what is needed in the job and u can’t take the appropriate action as u fear the action / backlash because they are a minority– race, gender, etc.

– Anxious in Atlanta

I thought that was a very interesting point and one of those things that HR departments dread happening inside their company. As I reflected on it, a podcast I produced a year ago came to mind. In the podcast, I predicted the increase in racism at the workplace for a variety of reasons. Although I had no idea of the levels of civil unrest we are experiencing today, my theory was based on survey data from a polling app called – TruePublic.

One of the polling statements posed on the app was “Racism is still common in the American Workplace” and you as a TruePublic user had the choice to agree or disagree with the statement. I thought the results were interesting. Out of the 1,201 votes, 84% of Democrats strongly agreed that racism was common in the workplace whereas 62% of Republicans did not. Independents were in the middle at 75%. For those who were Hispanic or Asian, the view was 80% agreeable, Blacks strongly agreed at 86% and Whites agreed at 71%. And there were other breakdowns available, to see them all, download the TruePublic app and find them there. But, I digress.

Why did so many people feel that racism proliferated in their 2019 workplace? Was it really that common? I remember thinking that it wasn’t because such had not been my experience. Out of curiosity, I researched it and remembered thinking how fortunate I was to not experience the drama others had been going through. I’m going to share some of the research I looked up a year ago and invite you to comment on the state of racism in the workplace today.

For those who don’t know about the EEOC here is an overview of what they do, straight from their website.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (aka EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Most employers with at least 15 employees are covered by EEOC laws (20 employees in age discrimination cases). Most labor unions and employment agencies are also covered.

The laws apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits.

Among other things, the EEOC tracks how many cases of discrimination they process per year, per state. In case you are curious, Pennsylvania (4,463 cases), Texas (7,482 cases) and Florida (6,617 cases) were the states with the most cases processed by the EEOC in 2018.

Here are a few interesting cases related to racism in the workplace that you might not have heard about it in the news.   

CareerAddict reports on JPMorgan Chase, quote…

Amidst ongoing allegations of a lack of diversity on Wall Street, high-profile investment bank JPMorgan Chase settled out of court for $19.5 million with six of its employees last year, citing its commitment to ensuring a diverse and inclusive environment as its reason for avoiding litigation. The six employees in question – located at JPMorgan Chase branches across the US – claim that they were relocated by the bank to less lucrative branches than their white counterparts, thereby denying them numerous career and growth opportunities. As part of the settlement, an additional $4.5 million will be set aside to fund anti-discrimination training, BAME recruitment drives and coaching programmes for black employees.

Campus Safety Magazine reports, quote…

A federal court in Virginia has entered a $200,000 judgment against Old Dominion University (ODU) in favor of Brett Birkmeyer, a white former police officer in the predominantly black ODU Police Department, who sued ODU claiming he was fired by ODU because he is white and because he complained to ODU officials that he and other white employees in the ODU Police Department were being subjected to race discrimination.

And this case, EEOC v. Hamilton Growers, Inc., I found on XpertHR. Quote…

Hamilton Growers, Inc., d/b/a Southern Valley Fruit & Vegetable (Southern Valley), agreed to pay $500,000 to settle a claim of racial bias brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC alleged that Southern Valley violated Title VII by terminating almost all American workers while retaining most of its workers from Mexico. The EEOC also claimed that American workers were provided with “lesser job opportunities,” subject to different terms and conditions of employment such as delayed starting times and early stop times, or denied the opportunity to work at all, while Mexican workers were permitted to continue working. In addition to the monetary settlement, Southern Valley agreed to exercise good faith and implement nondiscriminatory hiring practices by recruiting and retaining qualified American workers and African-American workers for all farm work positions.

When I looked for examples of judgements awarded as a result of EEOC litigation and/or related lawsuits, I wanted to find a pattern. I wanted to gauge if racism in the workplace was an actual thing or, if it was something that disgruntled employees do. After all, just because people file a case against an employer for discrimination, doesn’t make it so; especially in light or the political and cultural divide going on in 2019 America (when I first looked this stuff up). So, imagine my delight and subsequent disappointment, when I stumbled across this book called –  “Rights on Trial: How Workplace Discrimination Perpetuates Inequality.”

The authors Robert L. Nelson and Ellen Berrey were discussed in a Huffington Post article of which I will quote…

The authors of the new book, Rights on Trial: How Workplace Discrimination Perpetuates Inequality, examined nearly 2,000 cases filed between 1988 and 2003 across the U.S.. The three authors interviewed more than 100 plaintiffs, defendants, lawyers and involved parties to find that the workplace often is not fair in cases of discrimination. The success rate for cases of discrimination filed is dismal; only two percent of plaintiffs win at trial. That is after 19 percent of the cases were dismissed. Half or 50 percent have early settlements, 18 percent of the cases are lost on summary judgment and 8 percent of the cases have a late settlement.

To promote the book, the author posted audio of some of the people they interviewed for the book. Here are some of the clips I found interesting.

In the future, I think there will be more racism in the office because at its core, racism is the result of willful bigotry. I don’t know you personally, so I rely on stereotypes and groupthink to form my opinion rather than identify you as a person. People do it all the time which is why racism persists. The changing demographics of America will surely exacerbate some of that. Do a search on DuckDuckGo or Bing or Google for the phrase “the browning of America” for more insight into what I mean. As more and more people enter the workforce from diverse backgrounds that you do not know, understand or want to understand, the more racism will persist, to varying degrees.

Now add to that more women in leadership positions competing against men, and that increases the likelihood of gender discrimination (and reverse gender discrimination). As minorities increase in the population, more cases of reverse discrimination will likely occur.

And I don’t think that’s a race thing or a gender thing (for that matter), I think it’s a human thing. No race or special group is without sin, in my opinion. Just put that group, any group in power and watch them eventually take advantage of those with lesser influence.

One of my heroes, the Rev Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

On one hand, my country still has some work to do before Rev King’s dream is fully realized yet on the other hand, we have come a mighty long way. So much so, that I refuse to believe that America is an inherently racist country. And I am not the only one who thinks that way. Listen to how this African American radio personality – Larry Elder responds to the question, Is America Racist?  

Now, I want to hear from you. The way things are now, should we expect more racism in the workplace or less? Will companies be afraid to fire nonperforming minority workers because of political correctness? If so, how many companies will lose profits because of that? How many people will leave said company because they are outraged or offended or simply feel that they are unfairly treated? Please, please, please share your thoughts.

Is Going to College Worth It in 2020? | Tribe TV

How important is a college degree? In the age of COVID, many students and parents are weighing the pros and cons of student debt. When so many colleges are going virtual, is the full tuition fee justified? Should education taxes be refunded to parents? Or, are trade schools and/or specialty programs like Google’s Career Certificate program the best way to go?

In this episode, Jim Stroud – VP, Marketing at Proactive Talent is joined by Vanessa Martin, Design and Marketing Specialist at Proactive Talent and together they discuss the controversies surrounding education and possible solutions. Find more content like this at Proactive Talent.

The Pros and Cons of the Employee Free Choice Act

The Retro Lounge Podcast Series

And this is the original description from FEBRUARY 24, 2009

Jim Stroud and Karen Mattonen lead a “heated” debate over the Employee Free Choice Act.  Listen in and find out that the more you learn about the EFCA, you either love it or you hate it. Listen in and see what side of the debate you are on. Special thanks to our guests Nancy Schiffer (Associate General Counsel, AFL-CIO)  and Steve Markin (former Union member with 20 years of legal experience). Oh yes! This one was a doozy.

In this episode:

(Timing is off due to updated edits)

00:32 – Remember that thing?
01:46 –
01:56 – Name that tune
04:33 – 60 million US Workers said they would join a union right now
05:11 – Mostly what I did was help workers go through the legal process
09:00 – Its been endorsed by Congress and the Supreme Court
10:27 – Will we have the right to a secret ballot?
12:34 – Most workers never go back to that workplace
15:47 – Right now, sure the employer is abusive becuase the system is designed…
20:16 – I don’t think you put all unions in a box as good, and all employers in a box as bad
22:20 – I don’t think we need a union because I am going to treat you fairly anyway.
24:54 – What they really wanted from this employer was cooperative relationship
28:16 – I want to hire more people, but if I am made to do this I will go out of business
31:10 – This is my salary. If you don’t pay me, someone else will
32:13 – If you don’t perform, you’re gone!
32:42 – They’re charged with keeping the best interest of the shareholders
35:07 – I think it denies the reality that both sides (employer and employee) can be abusive
36:58 – That’s why most of the time the Act fails workers
38:08 – The Act to me brings a balance to a very lopsided…
39:04 – Be sure to subscribe to us via iTunes

In case you didn’t know, stagflation sucks…

The Retro Lounge Podcast Series

Original description of this retro episode:
Original air date: February 27, 2008

Jim Stroud and Karen Mattonen discuss “Stagflation” and how it affects the recruiting industry (and life in general.) Also, be careful how you classify your workers because it just might cost you a billion dollars. (Yeah, that’s billion with a “B.”) If you hire consultants, you CAN NOT miss this episode. Plus we react to your letters. (Keep ‘em comin’) All this and the usual bickering and bantering you’ve come to love here at – The Recruiters Lounge. | Big thanks to Proactive Talent.

Is Planned Parenthood Committing Black Genocide a Myth?

Throughout my career I have stayed away from controversial social issues for the most part, until recently. If you check my blog archives, you will notice that I have argued that America is not a racist country, that culture and not color impedes African American progress, questioned the motives of Black Lives Matter and pondered the inevitable demise of free speech. So, this article is not my first attempt at discussing a controversial issue.

What was the catalyst of this change? Why am I writing so much more about controversial issues? The civil unrest surrounding George Floyd, cancel culture, fake news and the escalating social divide over politics (which has become a religion for some people) has vexed me into action and so here we are.

The topics I write about generally meet one criterion: It sparks my interest. I find my topics from a litany of blogs and news sources; additionally, I receive tips from friends on both sides of the political spectrum. Once something catches my interest, I research it further and present my findings as an article or a podcast. When I produce my content, I purposely try not to tell anyone how to think. At best, I am a springboard for diversity of thought, encouraging people to research my topics further. To paraphrase what one news outlet says, “I report and you decide.”

This article is in response to an article about Planned Parenthood (of which I will share momentarily) and a round of questions concerning black lives and if “they all matter.” The premise being that if all black lives matter then, why are so many black children being aborted? This lead into a conversation about Margaret Sanger and her intent to eradicate the black race via abortions and why the black community was allowing it to happen. After a bit of back and forth, the conversation basically boiled down to this, “Is Planned Parenthood committing black genocide?” I told the person that I did not know the answer but, I would look into it.

And, here we are.

I am well aware that this is a sensitive topic so from the onset, let me offer my standard personal disclaimer.


This article does not constitute the end of a matter. Please do your own research and come to your own conclusions. You have a mind and an opinion, and you are entitled to it; just as I am.

If at any point you think I am wrong in simply sharing what I found, I will save us both time by referring to this disclaimer, “You are right, and I am wrong.”

There, feel better?


Planned Parenthood of Greater NY recently made a big announcement. This is the headline from MSN News – Planned Parenthood to rename health center due to Margaret Sanger’s ‘racist legacy’ and here is a quote from that article

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York announced Tuesday that it would remove the name of the national organization’s founder from its Manhattan clinic due to her “racist legacy” stemming from her well-documented connections with the eugenics movement.

Planned Parenthood’s Manhattan Margaret Sanger Health Center will be renamed, and Planned Parenthood of Greater New York is working with the city to also rename an honorary street sign that marks “Margaret Sanger Square” at the corner where the center stands, PPGNY said in a statement.

The decision comes as a result of “a public commitment to reckon with its founder’s harmful connections to the eugenics movement,” the statement said.

“The removal of Margaret Sanger’s name from our building is both a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledge Planned Parenthood’s contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color,” said PPGNY board chair Karen Seltzer. “Margaret Sanger’s concerns and advocacy for reproductive health have been clearly documented, but so too has her racist legacy.”


Hmm… As an example of her “racist” legacy, I will quote a letter she wrote to Dr. Clarence Gamble in 1939 where she expressed her vision of the “Negro Project,” a freshly launched collaboration between the American Birth Control League and Sanger’s Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau. The letter echoes the eugenic ideologies still visible within the corporate vein of Planned Parenthood today.

It seems to me from my experience…that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.

We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Actually, I had heard before how Planned Parenthood was an instrument for exterminating the black race. The validation of that argument being Margaret Sanger’s speech at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926 (something Planned Parenthood does not deny) and the notion that the majority of Planned Parenthood facilities are in minority neighborhoods. Is this true? Well, it depends on which side of the political fence you are on.




Curiously enough though, the idea of abortion clinics being tools for black genocide did not begin with modern day pro-life advocates, it actually began with influential black leaders in the 1960’s and 70’s. Here are some notable quotes courtesy of

  • In 1968, when radical abortion advocates such as Larry Lader were pushing their abortion agenda, civil rights leader Paul Cornely (then president-elect of the American Public Health Association (APHA) and African American chairman of the Department of Community Health Practice at Howard University) was opposing abortion as a way to “help the poor.” He told the Charleston Gazette that the way to “change existing social conditions is not through marketing abortion available to the poor. We need to find a better way for people to live. We have to look at the total problem – social, economic-education, housing employment….”

  • Also in 1968, Members of a Pittsburgh chapter of the NAACP, which charged that Planned Parenthood facilities in Black neighborhoods were paramount with genocide. According to the New York Times, “The N.A.A.C.P. contended in its statement that Planned Parenthood clinics here were operated ‘without moral responsibility to the Black race and become an instrument of genocide to the black people.’” Dr. Charles Greenlee, a black physician, along with NAACP president Byrd Brown, charged that Planned Parenthood facilities were keeping the birth rate down. Although Dr. Greenlee eventually walked back the term “genocide,” the group noted how Planned Parenthood was strategically placing its facilities in neighborhoods with high Black populations.
  • In the early 1970s, comedian Dick Gregory wrote an extensive article, “My Answer to Genocide,” published in Ebony Magazine, where he made similar claims: Of course, one of the definitions of genocide is, “imposing measures to prevent births within the group” – that is, forcing birth control measures upon Black folks. There is ample evidence that government programs designed for poor black folks emphasize birth control and abortion availability, both measures obviously designed to limit black population.”
  • In 1971, a Detroit Chapter of the Black Panther Party expelled one of its leaders from the organization for simply asking where she could obtain an abortion…. At the time the party proclaimed, “A true revolutionary cares about the people–he cares to the point that he is willing to put his life on the line to help the masses of poor and oppressed people. He would never think of killing his unborn child.”
  • In a separate 1973 Jet Magazine article, the Jesse Jackson, a known civil rights leader of his day, also called abortion “genocide.” Then, two years later, Rev. Jackson joined with anti-abortion organizations and endorsed a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion. And, in 1977, Jackson observed, “It is strange that they chose to start talking about population control at the same time that Black people in America and people of color around the world are demanding their rightful place as human citizens and their rightful share of the material wealth in the world.”

So, in the black community of the 60’s and 70’s, there was a very strong lobby against abortion clinics being placed in black neighborhoods. This social position continued well into the 1980’s. However, the will of the black community was stymied by their leadership. It was seem that politicians, no matter their color, act in ways that benefit them moreso than those they represent. Check out this quote from the book, “The Future of the Race” by Henry Louis Gates, Jr and Cornell West. (Page 33)

A 1985 survey found that most blacks favored the death penalty and prayer in public schools while most back leaders opposed those things. Most blacks opposed school busing, while most black leaders favored it. Three times as many blacks opposed abortion rights as their leaders. Indeed, on many key social issues, blacks are more conservative than whites.



Since the 1980’s attitudes towards abortion has largely changed in the black community. The website “I Side With…” recently polled African Americans on the question, “What is your stance on Abortion?”  Over 300,000 responded and 63% of them were pro-choice, in favor of abortion.

So, what accounts for such a dramatic shift in opinion? I can only speculate with a hint of cynicism. Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat and Democrats as a party, overwhelmingly support Planned Parenthood as this chart of where Planned Parenthood gets their donations can attest.

­And the love goes both ways, annual lobbying on Pro-Abortion rights is quite lucrative according to Open Secrets. Here’s a quote…

The 2018 midterms saw the pro-abortion sector donate $8.1 million with most of it, nearly $5.6 million, headed to outside groups. Of the money given to political parties and candidates, the overwhelming majority, 99 percent, went to Democrats. The top recipient in 2018, Sen. Jon Tester (D-N.D.), received $94,999 from individuals and groups in the abortion access sector. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) was number two and received $87,051. Both are reliable pro-access votes and were in tight races in Midwestern states.

The largest contributor was the national women’s health organization Planned Parenthood. Individuals and affiliates of Planned Parenthood contributed more than $5.7 million in 2018. NARAL Pro-Choice America individuals spent the second-most and gave just over $1.1 million.



Democrats tend to support Planned Parenthood with donations.

Planned Parenthood reciprocates the love by supporting Democrat candidates to the tune of millions.

If Democrat candidates support the efforts of Planned Parenthood, it is of direct benefit to them.

Politicians (of every party) tend to operate in their self-interest. (Some are more naughty than others.)


Based on recent polling data, the overwhelming Democratic support for Planned Parenthood (and vice versa) and the fact that most blacks are loyal to the Democratic party, I would guess that the majority of African-Americans dismiss the notion that Planned Parenthood is practicing genocide, despite its founder’s “Negro Project.” (Perhaps the pro-abortion side of the black community is mostly unaware of Margaret Sanger’s past? Will her cancellation sway black opinion on abortion back to where it was in the 60’s, 70’s or 80’s? Time will tell. )

Some opinions I’ve read assert that while Planned Parenthood’s founder should no longer be celebrated, the health benefits to women (and women of color, specifically) should outweigh that stigma. I’m not sure I agree with that but, you decide for yourself.

I’ll end this article with one very interesting video addressing the “Planned Parenthood is committing black genocide” argument. I’m a big fan of hidden video reporting because I think it is the essence of true journalism. What better proof can you have than words from the proverbial horse’s mouth? The pro-life advocacy group produced an undercover video addressing the question, “What does Planned Parenthood do when it is offered money to reduce the number of black Americans through abortion?



More stuff I found while researching this: