Category: World of Work

Supreme Court Ruling Strikes Down Affirmative Action: Examining the Aftermath

Affirmative action, a policy designed to address historical inequalities and promote diversity in the workplace, has been a subject of debate for decades. Proponents have asserted that Affirmative action policies can help to correct past injustices and provide opportunities for groups that have been historically excluded, helps disadvantaged groups climb the socioeconomic ladder, improve productivity and help to create a more inclusive and diverse workplace environment. Whereas opponents argue affirmative action policies are discriminatory and unfair to those who are not part of the preferred group and create a stigma that women and minorities were only hired or admitted because of their gender or skin color, which can lead to resentment and tension in the workplace or educational environment. They also point out affirmative action policies can disadvantage qualified individuals who are not part of the preferred group. Quite recently, the Supreme Court agreed with the opponents of affirmative action.

The Supreme Court struck down affirmative action programs in college admissions on June 29, 2023. The court ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities. The court’s majority opinion said that both Harvard’s and UNC’s affirmative action programs “unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points.” The decision effectively ends race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country. The decision has sparked debates about the potential consequences for minority representation in institutions and workplaces. To quote the Wall Street Journal…

“There are people who say, ‘I really wish we were more diverse,’ and I’ve also seen people say, ‘Stop being so woke,’ ” says Sharp.

The removal of race as a factor in college admissions stands to change the pipeline of diverse graduates companies can hire and likely opens challenges to longstanding hiring and promotion practices, legal experts say. For managers, the challenge is about fairly assessing a job candidate’s skills or an employee’s readiness for promotion at a time when workplace diversity measures already face questions from both supporters and skeptics.

In interviews with a dozen current and former diversity and HR heads, leaders say they are hearing from employees discouraged about what they view as lost momentum in advancing people of color and underrepresented minorities after George Floyd’s murder in police custody led to greater national attention to race and inequity. Leaders say they are also facing quiet, but no less insistent, pushback from some workers, with combative questions about diversity initiatives in surveys and company town halls.

The mixed reactions cited by the Wall Street Journal are echoing across the internet. On the proponent side, there are the coincidental exits of multiple diversity officers from major corporations; among them:  Disney’s chief diversity officer Latondra Newton, Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences’ Executive VP of Impact and Inclusion – Jeanell English, Netflix’s First Head of Inclusion Vernā Myers, and Karen Horne, a diversity, equity and inclusion executive at Warner Bros. Discovery. The online controversy is that they all departed their positions as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, but that is not the case. The demand for diversity officers has been experiencing high turnover for the past few years. To quote the Wall Street Journal once more…

It’s one of the hottest jobs in America—and it has a revolving door.

U.S. companies are rushing to hire chief diversity officers or elevate existing leaders to the position in the midst of pressure to address racial divisions and inequities within their organizations.

The role has long been marked by high turnover, with many in the position, known as CDO, leaving over a lack of resources, unrealistic expectations and inadequate support from senior executives, according to current and former CDOs.

They also move because they are in high demand, according to recruiters, who say average tenure is about three years.

People attracted to the position “see themselves as change agents” yet often end up disillusioned, said Pamela Newkirk, author of “Diversity, Inc.: The Failed Promise of a Billion-Dollar Business.”

Another online firestorm brewing is video evidence of how affirmative action does more harm than good, at least in the view of its opponents. Journalist Christopher Rufo posted a video of Berkeley Law School dean Erwin Chemerinsky explaining how he has secretly enacted a policy of racial discrimination in faculty hiring—which is illegal in California.

In reaction to that video, attorney Stephen Miller of America First Legal sent a legal threat letter to every law school in America threatening lawsuits if they do not comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

Its easy to see the political divide around this issue, as it has been in place since the inception of affirmative action. What is not so clear cut is how minorities have been responding to the news. Obviously, no minority group is a monolith of opinion. As I researched various sources, I wanted a gauge on what the overwhelming sentiment was for minority groups and found… none. For example, when I reviewed what the Asian community thought of the Supreme Court decision, I discovered mixed reactions. (The lawsuits that led to the Supreme Court’s ruling on racial preferences were largely brought on behalf of Asian-American students.) Some Asian Americans were thrilled with the ruling, while others lamented the role Asians played in the cases. The National Congress of American Indians expressed disappointment, as did Latin advocacy groups like Latino Justice, and Hispanic Federation. The mixed reactions from African Americans could not be more poignantly expressed than in the fiery opposition between Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson. To quote CNN, Justice Thomas said the following…

“Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color,” Thomas wrote.

“While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination,” he added, “I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law.”

In direct opposition, Justice Jackson retorted…

“Justice Thomas ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here,” Jackson wrote. “The takeaway is that those who demand that no one think about race (a classic pink-elephant paradox) refuse to see, much less solve for, the elephant in the room – the race-linked disparities that continue to impede achievement of our great Nation’s full potential.”

In her broader dissent, Jackson said that the argument made by the challengers that affirmative action programs are unfair “blinks both history and reality in ways too numerous to count.”

Although the debate surrounding affirmative action has been mostly pros verses cons, there is also a third alternative proposed by popular YouTuber Oshay Duke Jackson. His supposition is more of a separatist position, built on self-reliance. In a recent video, he addressed the supreme court decision on diversity and suggested (heavily) that the African-American community should focus on building and supporting its own economy ahead of contributing to the success of major corporations. 1,216 commentators (at this writing) tended to agree with him. Some of the comments on his latest video are…

It was only a matter of time before we lose a foothold for being “just black” in the career space. Merit means everything. “Just being” something has a time-limit especially in America. Mr. Duke Jackson is right… it is time to form corporations and buy business real-estate instead of just happy having a foothold. – @lantian99

When people are hired based off of experience, professionalism, and ability there is no need for Affirmative Action. Our ancestors accomplished so much without AA we don’t need it. We are capable. @noneedtosay7553

Jamaican here. We are a third world country, yet we produce so many scholars who get into these institutions by merit. So I completely agree with Candace. I would be so mad if I found out someone with a lower GPA than myself got a spot at Harvard over me. @potfulexpressions442

No matter your allegiance on this issue, the impact of the Supreme Court decision will reverberate for generations. Morgan Freeman famously said that he did not want a black history month. He felt that race should not be an issue and that the solution to ending racism was to stop talking about it. As I reflect on his viewpoint, I can appreciate its appeal. If companies wanted to give every job applicant an equal opportunity to achieve, why not implement a blind hiring practice based on skills assessment? For the uninitiated, blind hiring is a hiring practice that involves obscuring identifiable characteristics from a candidate’s application that are not related to job performance. Blind hiring is a way to reduce bias in the hiring process and thereby increase diversity in the workforce. A few examples of blind hiring practices are:

  • Removing specific identifying information like the candidate’s name, address, and schools attended from resumes.
  • Using pre-employment testing, when data about applicants’ skills and characteristics is collected through assessments and the results are compared to pre-set benchmarks.
  • Removing all personal and demographic information from the hiring process so hiring managers can assess candidates based on ability alone.
  • Using gender-decoding software, like Textio, to remove gender bias from job descriptions.
  • Assessing candidates based on skills testing using software like TaTiO, then inviting the top performers in for interviews.

Blind hiring practices have been implemented by major companies like Virgin Money, Deloitte, HSBC, BBC, and Google, as well as companies in every industry and of every size.

Now, am I suggesting that simply not talking about diversity in the hiring practice is the best response to the striking down of affirmative action? Am I saying blind hiring practices will quell all debate around the issue going forward? No. There is way too much monetary incentive for racism to utterly disappear from the workplace.  I’m simply saying that its worth a try and that the American culture, overall, seems to agree with me.

Employee Abuse in the Workplace

Blaming, name-calling, belitting, depriving of rights, lying, embarassing, ignoring, and judging are only a few examples of behaviors no one wants to experience in the workpace. Unfortunately, the people applying these behaviors may be your customer, coworker, or even your boss. If you are the recipient of any of these behaviors at your job, you may be experiencing verbal, emotional, and psychological abuse in the workplace.

How you handle your abuse depends on whether or not the abuser has direct authority over you. If the abuse is from your supervisor, you are in a precarious situation because the supervisor does have direct authority over you. You can try to talk to your supervisor to resolve the abuse. If your attempts fail, you can talk to your supervisor’s manager; however, doing so can be extremely risky. Often, managers have the mindset of unconditionally supporting the supervisors they manage and the manager may ask your supervisor to “handle” the situation. Your supervisor may perceive you as a troublemaker trying to undermine the supervisor and in turn, your supervisor may intensify the abuse toward you. Furthermore, if the organization for which you work is a hire at will state, laws allow your supervisor to fire you “at will” without cause. Thus, you may find yourself without a job simply because you tried to stop the abuse.

Besides talking to you supervisor or your supervisor’s manager, you can consider mediation if your supervisor agrees to participate. You can also consider talking with human resources, employee relations, your employee assistance program, labor relations, your union, your legal department, the chief executive officer, your organization’s president, equal employment opportunity, your attorney, your minister, your priest, your rabbi, or your counselor. Be aware that human resources in particular as well as the other areas you contact within your company may not offer you confidentiality and they may call your manager who in turn, may want to retaliate against you or try to fire you rather than cooperate.

If you receive abuse from a coworker or other employee, these people do not have authority over you so you have safer options for handling their abuse. You can talk to the abuser, talk to your own supervisor, talk to the abuser’s supervisor, or consider the same options that exist if you are the recipient of abuse from your supervisor. Likewise, if the abuse is from a customer and you need help in handling the situation, you can ask a coworker or your boss for help or ask to be removed from the situation. If at any time, you feel you are in physical danger, definitely seek help and remove yourself from the situation.

If you receive abuse only once from a person, consider whether or not they are under stress and whether their abuse is a one-time occurence. If, however, you are the recipient of continual abuse, you have to decide if you want to stay in your position, transfer, or resign. If you have tried to resolve the abuse without success, why would you want to stay in an abusive work situation? Some people answer this question by saying they were abused as children and abuse is a familiar experience to them. They believe abuse is everywhere so they choose to stay in their current position.

If you you decide to leave or transfer to another position, first believe that work opportunities without abuse do exist for you. You do not have to suffer the effects of poor health, lack of motivation, wounded ego, and low self-esteem as a result of abuse. Second, you will need a competitive resume, effective interviewing skills, and job search strategies. Third, when you do receive an offer for another job, before accepting it, ask to speak with some of the employees who report to the same supervisor to which you will report. Ask their experiences with the person who would be your supervisor. By so doing, you can avoid accepting another position in which you may experience abuse.

Why do people act abusively? The reasons vary and range from people wanting power, lacking empathy, modeling others, lacking social skills, or having a mental health disorder. The list goes on and on. Regardless of the reason, what you do about your abuse depends on you. Everyone, including you, deserves respect. Your goal is to find it!

ABOUT THE WRITER

Terry L. Wynne, Ed.S., LPC, BCC, NCC, NCCC, CCC
The Professional Edge
www.TheProfessionalEdgeAtlanta.com

Terry L. Wynne, owner of The Professional Edge, is a Licensed Professional Counselor specializing in career counseling and a Board Certified Coach specializing in career coaching. The Professional Edge offers career counseling, career coaching, resume and cover letter writing, training, speaking, writing, and voiceovers.

Rethinking the Workplace: Innovative Strategies to Lure Employees Back

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way we work, and many companies are struggling to find ways to get employees back into the office on a regular basis. Why? They feel that an office presence is the best way to boost productivity among their workers. But is it? Well, that depends on who you ask. According to Fortune magazine, its crazy to force workers to return to the office.

“…despite the overwhelming evidence that flexible hybrid work is more productive than forced in-office work for the same roles, top executives are stubbornly herding employees back to the office like lost sheep, expecting productivity to miraculously improve. This, my friends, is the very definition of insanity.

Many CEOs are clinging to the false belief that the office is the secret sauce to productivity. It’s as if they think the office is a productivity vending machine: Insert employees, receive increased output. But the data tells a different story.

Instead of being a productivity wonderland, the office is more like a productivity black hole, where collaboration, socializing, mentoring, and on-the-job training thrive, but focused work gets sucked into oblivion. In fact, research shows that the office is detrimental to productivity.

For instance, a recent study by scholars at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Harvard University, and the University of Iowa found that software engineers located in different buildings on the same campus wrote more computer programs than those who were sitting close to colleagues…”

The good people over at The Economist, have a different view; the polar opposite. If you ask them, they will say you are crazy not to have your workers in the office. Here’s a quote…

David Atkin and Antoinette Schoar, both of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Sumit Shinde of the University of California, Los Angeles, randomly assigned data-entry workers in India to labour either from home or the office. Those working at home were 18% less productive than their peers in the office. Michael Gibbs of the University of Chicago and Friederike Mengel and Christoph Siemroth, both of the University of Essex, found a productivity shortfall, relative to prior in-office performance, of as much as 19% for the remote employees of a large Asian it firm. Another study determined that even chess professionals play less well in online matches than face-to-face tilts. Yet another used a laboratory experiment to show that video conferences inhibit creative thinking.

While some employees are eager to return to the office, others are hesitant or prefer to work remotely. Business leaders are grappling with how to create a new work world that will keep employees both happy and productive post-COVID.

What interested me the most was where both these ideas came together, highlighting the importance of having a closer bond with your coworkers for a successful work environment. Fortune, who strongly supports remote work, suggested a solution called structured mentoring, which means having mentorship programs both in the office and through remote means.

To leverage the advantages of both in-office and remote work in a structured mentoring program, companies can schedule targeted in-office sessions, use technology for remote mentoring, establish clear goals and expectations, encourage networking and collaboration, and monitor and evaluate progress.

Further down in the same article, Fortune says, “The office has its place for collaboration, mentoring, and training—but not for productivity.” That being said, arguments from both sides of the issue would likely agree that a hybrid model of work is what’s best for all concerned and I think that makes sense. Retention is a major issue for companies these days and one sure fire way to keep your employees longer is to foster a culture of teamwork and comradery. According to Gallup research, having a best friend at work is a strong predictor of whether an employee is likely to stay in their job, and there is a concrete link between having a best friend at work and the amount of effort a worker expends on their job. A survey of full-time workers in the U.S. found that individuals with six or more workplace friends feel deeply connected to their companies, and nearly two-thirds of those surveyed who had six to 25 workplace friends said they love their company. Love, not like. (And speaking of love, do you know the stats on how many people have dated and married their co-workers? It’s a lot. But I digress.)

Whether employees love it or hate it, the prevailing trend is towards a hybrid work environment. After being fully remote for so long, the journey back to the office has been met with resistance, to put it lightly. For example, tech companies like Apple, Meta, and Google are monitoring employees to ensure they show up at the office at least three days a week. In response, some employees are pushing back with protests and walkouts against the return-to-office demands, particularly in companies like Amazon. Twitter’s former CEO said remote work can last “forever,” but this decision was quickly overturned by Elon Musk, who called remote work “morally wrong.” Musk’s opinion not withstanding, the office occupancy rate in the top 10 largest metro areas in the US is hovering just below 50%, indicating that an en masse return to offices is unlikely. Still, companies are doing what they can to entice workers back to pre-covid working conditions. The strategies often manifest in office perks like live concerts, charitable contributions and commuter benefits. Other companies may offer catered lunches from popular nearby restaurants or simply making the request known without pressuring the employee to comply.

Hmmm… Maybe the solutions for creating a positive hybrid working environment can’t be found domestically. There are several norms overseas that Americans might find quirky yet, have proven to be effective in retaining employees and boosting productivity. For example, in France, its required to completely disconnect from work after office hours. In South Korea, you are encouraged to take a mid-day nap in order to boost personal productivity. In Brazil, it is common to start meetings 15-30 minutes late. And conducting business in a Sauna is normal for workers in Finland.

In the ever-evolving landscape of work, companies in America are grappling with the challenge of enticing employees back to the office post-COVID. As explored in this article, various strategies have emerged, from offering enticing incentives and fostering a social environment to being transparent and flexible. But maybe the solution isn’t in domestic practices. The answer could be adopting cultural norms  from overseas. Unconventional office practices, such as mandatory disconnection after work hours, mid-day napping, and doing work in a sauna, could be what ultimately attracts workers back to the office. Regardless of the strategies employed, it is evident that building work relationships is a vital factor in creating a productive and engaging work environment. Friendships at work have been linked to higher employee satisfaction, productivity, and retention. As companies navigate the new work world, prioritizing meaningful workplace connections will be crucial for a successful post-COVID era. Let’s see what happens.

 

Open or Closed: The Battle for the Soul of AI

There is a battle raging, right now, over the soul of artificial intelligence. To understand the fight, you have to understand two terms: Open-source technology and Closed-source technology.

  • Open-source technology refers to software or technology that is openly available, allowing users to view, modify, and distribute its source code. It promotes transparency and collaboration as anyone can access and contribute to the development and improvement of the software.
  • Closed-source technology, also known as proprietary or commercial software, is developed and distributed with restricted access to its source code. The source code is typically owned by a specific organization or entity, and users are granted licenses to use the software.

Open-source AI models, which let anyone view and manipulate the code, are growing in popularity as startups and giants alike race to compete with market leader ChatGPT. And on the flip side, early movers in generative AI — including OpenAI and Google, are seeking to protect their early-mover advantage by keeping their secret sauce – secret. (FYI: OpenAI, despite its name, uses a closed model for ChatGPT — meaning it’s kept full control and ownership.)

Whichever way the next wave of HR tech tools proliferates, open-source or closed-source (commercial software), it will directly impact what HR tools will be able to do and how much you will be paying for them. I’ll go into more details on that after this very important announcement to my viewers in New York. What I am about to share with you is timely and will impact your HR Tech budget as of July 5, 2023. Everyone else, pay attention, because its only a matter of time before this becomes relevant to you.

New York City has adopted final rules on the use of automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) in hiring, which take effect on July 5, 2023. The AEDT law (also referred to as New York Local Law 144) restricts the use of AEDTs and artificial intelligence (AI) by employers and employment agencies by requiring that such tools be subjected to bias audits and requiring employers and employment agencies to notify employees and job applicants of their use. (FYI: An AEDT is defined as a tool that “substantially assists or replaces” an employer’s discretion in making employment-related decisions.) The law applies to any decision relating to the hiring, promoting, reassigning, evaluating, disciplining, terminating, or setting of salary of an employee, assignment of working hours or shifts, or any other similar decision with respect to an employee or applicant for employment.

All that to say this, if the HR tech tools you are using in NY are not complaint with the AEDT law, you can be penalized as much as $1500.00 per day, for each HR tech tool that is not compliant. Now knowing that, I bet you are wondering, “Are the tools in my tech stack AEDT compliant? I need to know and I need to know now!” No worries, click here to be taken to an online registry of AEDT compliant tools. Simply fill out a form and get an AEDT report today. Get instant peace of mind knowing your HR tech stack is fully compliant or, get a reason to freak out – Act now.

And if you are not in NY, its still a good reason to click the link in the video description because one day, the AEDT law (or something similar) may be coming to your state soon.

But, I digress. Open Source vs closed source aka proprietary software aka commercial software. The debate around using open source technology verses closed technology has been ongoing for years. And typically, when it happens, you hear these points:

On the open source side:

  • Open source software is typically developed collaboratively by a community of developers, which can lead to innovation and improvements (Think: Open-source tools – Linux, Android, Apache).

On the closed source side:

  • Closed systems can be more optimized for performance, scalability, and security. (Think: Microsoft Windows, Adobe Photoshop, Apple iOS).

And, to be fair, there are more points to consider on both sides of the issue but that’s what I tend to hear the most. When I think of all the other points that come up in the open/close debate, I start to speculate how that debate impacts HR technology. Whether the HR tech trends lean towards open source or whether they lean more closed source, I am confident HR tech customers will likely see the following…

In the case of closed-source development for AI tools, customers can expect..

  • Limited customization: Closed source software is not open to modification or enhancement by users, which means that organizations may not be able to customize the software to meet their specific needs.
  • Higher costs: Closed source software is often more expensive than open source software, which could make it more difficult for smaller organizations to afford.
  • Reduced innovation: Open source software encourages innovation and collaboration among developers, which could be stifled if LLMs like ChatGPT become closed source.
  • Decreased transparency: Closed source software is not transparent, which means that users cannot inspect the source code to ensure that it is secure and free from vulnerabilities.
  • Limited access to data: Closed source software may not provide access to all the data that organizations need to make informed decisions about their workforce.
  • Integration challenges: If LLMs like ChatGPT become closed source, it could be more difficult to integrate them with other HR systems, such as learning management systems (LMS)

Now, let’s consider the alternative. In the case of open-source development for AI tools, customers can expect..

  • Increased customization: Open source software is designed to be modified or enhanced by users, which means that organizations may be able to customize the software to meet their specific needs.
  • Lower costs: Open source software is often free or less expensive than closed source software, which could make it more accessible to smaller organizations.
  • Increased innovation: Open source software encourages innovation and collaboration among developers, which could lead to the development of new and improved HR tech tools.
  • Increased transparency: Open source software is transparent, which means that users can inspect the source code to ensure that it is secure and free from vulnerabilities.
  • Increased access to data: Open source software may provide access to all the data that organizations need to make informed decisions about their workforce.
  • Easier integration: If LLMs like ChatGPT become open source, it could be easier to integrate them with other HR systems, such as learning management systems (LMS)

Let me wrap this up…

The battle between open-source and closed-source technology is shaping the future of artificial intelligence and its impact on HR technology. As discussed, both approaches have their advantages and drawbacks. While closed-source AI tools offer optimized performance and security, they may limit customization, increase costs, and hinder innovation. On the other hand, open-source AI models promote collaboration, customization, lower costs, and innovation, but they may present integration challenges and require careful consideration of data access and transparency. As the landscape evolves, HR tech customers need to stay informed about the implications of these choices and how they align with their specific needs and goals. Whether the trend leans towards open source or closed source, it is clear that the decisions made in this battle will shape the future of HR technology and ultimately impact organizations and employees alike.

But hey, that’s just my opinion. What’s yours? Leave a comment and let’s have a conversation about it. Operators are standing by.

Fired for Being White

Is it fair to discriminate against white people in an effort to balance out historical inequities? I don’t think so. I believe racism is wrong no matter the perpetrator. This is why I was glad to hear ten Black workers at Glow Networks Inc. had been awarded $70 million after they filed a lawsuit against Glow Networks Inc for discriminatory practices. I was just as elated to learn that a Starbucks manager recently won a discrimination lawsuit. In case you missed it, these are the highlights.

Shannon Phillips, a former regional manager, was fired after two black men were arrested at a Starbucks Philadelphia branch in 2018, leading to large protests. Phillips sued Starbucks in 2019, alleging that race had been a determining factor in her termination. She claimed that Starbucks was looking for a “scapegoat” to terminate to show action was being taken following the incident involving the two black men. Phillips alleged that Starbucks retaliated against herself and another white employee in an effort to “convince the community that it had properly responded to the incident.” A federal jury in Camden, New Jersey, on June 13, 2023, awarded Phillips $600,000 in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages after finding that Starbucks violated her federal civil rights in addition to a New Jersey law that prohibits discrimination based on race.

Shannon Phillips was essentially fired for being white, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time. As shameful as that incident was, this has happened a few times in recent memory. For example, a white hospital executive said he was fired and replaced by two women as part of a diversity push. He sued and was awarded $10 million. Keith Wann, a white sign language interpreter, claims he was fired from the Broadway production of “The Lion King” because of his race. According to reports, Wann was told over email that it was “no longer appropriate to have white interpreters represent Black characters for ASL Broadway shows”. Wann sued the Theatre Development Fund for discrimination, alleging that he was fired because of his race. In November 2022, Wann was awarded $10 million in a settlement. And then there is the case in Detroit with the Wayne County airport. To quote the Detroit Free Press…

A reverse discrimination lawsuit alleges the Wayne County Airport authority has created a hostile working environment for white employees, calling them “racist” over legitimate business decisions, shutting them out of meetings, and giving preferential treatment to Black workers, job applicants and minority-owned businesses because of their race.

“The effect has been Black employees are now immune to criticism, while white employees are expected to accept their relegation to second class status or face retaliation,” states the lawsuit, which also alleges that Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport “regularly bypasses the top-rated bidder on contracts in favor of lower-rated minority owned businesses.”

Moreover, the suit alleges, the airport unlawfully uses race as the No. 1 factor “in all employment decisions.”

Further down the article it reads…

“Donerson had already harbored an obsession with race,” the lawsuit states. “But to Donerson, not only are all races not equal, certain Black employees are ‘Blacker’ than others.”

Donerson declined comment.

The lawsuit cites a meeting during which Donerson allegedly disparaged a Black co-worker who had left for another company, stating that she ” ‘wasn’t very Black.’ ”

Wood was confused by this comment, so Donerson allegedly further explained that the former co-worker “was raised by white parents.”

Are these incidents evidence of a trend of increased discrimination against white people? Some white people think so. According to a May 2022 University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll, a majority of white Americans say they have seen an increase in discrimination against other whites, they say at the same time that other groups, including Black and Latino Americans, have been less discriminated against. On the flip side, Black and Latino Americans say their groups have been discriminated against while also saying that other groups have also been highly discriminated against. This is somewhat in line with what I have seen in other studies. For example, in the Association for Psychological Science study, “Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They are Now Losing, it was reported that both blacks and whites believed that discrimination against blacks had declined over the past few decades, but whites believed that discrimination against whites was now more common than discrimination against blacks. Why was that? Michael Norton and Sam Sommers, the authors of the study, thought it was because the more whites thought discrimination against blacks was decreasing, the more they felt discrimination against whites was increasing. That sentiment holds true in other studies as well, which say increasing diversity increases the perception of anti-white bias.

Whether real or imagined, the perception of white bias will continue to increase with the browning of America. According to recent demographic projections, the white population in the United States is expected to become a minority by 2044. This is due to a combination of factors, including a declining birth rate among white Americans and increasing immigration from non-white countries. While the white population is still the largest racial or ethnic group in the United States, accounting for 60% of all Americans, the shift to a more diverse nation is happening more quickly in some places than in others. When this happens, or as we trend towards this inevitability, how will this affect the practices of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) practitioners? Will the calls to “be less white” as it is often preached in some diversity trainings fade away? Will there be a shift from proclaiming we operate in a white supremacist culture? If the population averages out to a multi-ethnic mix, what will become of the DEI industry? I asked ChatGPT, “If there was no minority-majority in America, would there be a need for the DEI industry?” Chat GPT responded…

If there were no minority-majority race in the United States, the dynamics and focus of the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) industry might evolve, but the need for promoting equity, inclusion, and addressing bias would still exist. While the specific emphasis on racial disparities might shift, other dimensions of diversity and social inequalities would continue to be relevant.

Here are a few reasons why the DEI industry would still have a need:

Intersectionality: Intersectionality recognizes that individuals have multiple social identities and face overlapping forms of discrimination and privilege. Even without a clear majority or minority race, individuals would still have diverse identities based on factors such as gender, age, socioeconomic status, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and more. DEI efforts would focus on acknowledging and addressing these intersections to ensure equal opportunities and inclusivity for all.

Social and Economic Disparities: Beyond racial disparities, other forms of social and economic inequalities persist. These include disparities in income, education, employment, healthcare, and representation. The DEI industry would continue to work towards reducing these disparities, promoting equitable access, and dismantling systemic barriers that hinder certain groups from fully participating and thriving in society.

Cultural Competence and Global Diversity: Even without a clear minority-majority distinction, cultural competence and understanding diversity remain crucial in an increasingly globalized world. The DEI industry would play a role in fostering cultural competency, promoting inclusive practices, and facilitating intercultural understanding among individuals and organizations.

Bias and Discrimination: Bias and discrimination can manifest in various forms, not limited to race alone. Implicit biases, stereotypes, and prejudiced attitudes can impact decision-making, workplace environments, and societal interactions. The DEI industry would continue to address these biases, raise awareness, and implement strategies to mitigate discrimination based on various dimensions of diversity.

While the specific focus and strategies of the DEI industry may adapt to reflect the changing landscape, the fundamental goal of fostering equity, inclusion, and equal opportunities for all individuals would persist, irrespective of the absence of a minority-majority racial dynamic.

When I read that I was disappointed because it demonstrated that there will always be a way to keep us divided, and a monetary incentive to do so.