CHAPTER 1
THE EVOLUTION OF DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT
In a number of ways, this chapter work provides a baseline or foundation for understanding organizational efforts to manage diversity. Additional insight into the chronology of organizational is provided through further analysis of carefully selected studies designed to describe the development of diversity management and the extent to which organizations have approached the issue of diversity. Two additional important findings emerged from this chronology. First, research shows that some organizations have simply repackaged their traditional equal employment opportunity and affirmative action programs. These organizations have not, it would seem, fully embraced the broader concept of diversity management as reflected in the literature. Second, some organizations do not address some of the most basic and traditional dimensions of diversity such as race, ethnicity or gender. This raises a number of fundamental and intriguing questions about the content and purpose of diversity management programs within those organizations.
Equal-Employment Opportunity
Following the days of segregation, workplaces were faced with a new business challenge—albeit one that was viewed not so much as a challenge, but rather a mandate—of complying with the proliferation of legislation and regulations that required organizations to increase racial and gender variation in order to meet federal equal-employment opportunity requirements. The first legislation of its kind in the early 1960s, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was landmark legislation that made it illegal for employers with more than fifteen employees to discriminate in hiring, termination, promotion, compensation, job training, or any other term or condition of employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Since then, Title VII has been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination and sexual harassment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is charged with enforcing Title VII.
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925 into law, thereby setting affirmative-action policies in motion. In the beginning, affirmative action was considered a positive weapon to combat racial discrimination. The language of the order stated that it was the "policy of the United States to encourage by affirmative action the elimination of discrimination" (Katznelson, 2005, p. 145).
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, which went one step further. The order prohibited federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors that did more than $10,000 in government business in one year from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Contractors were also required to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" (Katznelson, 2005, p. 145). Affirmative-action programs required employers to set goals to increase the utilization of underrepresented groups to achieve parity based on their labor-force availability. The Department of Labor 's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) was charged with enforcement of Executive Order 11246.
Because the legislation focused on "protected class" employees (i.e., discrimination was illegal based on race, ethnicity, sex, or religion initially; protection for other groups, such as people with disabilities, came later), nonmembers of these groups oft en resented their exclusion and believed that affirmative action led to the hiring of unqualified candidates and to preferential treatment for the targeted groups.
Affirmative-action policies were enacted during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, but they grew under President Richard M. Nixon. Employers and educators were required to take race into account in order to redress the disparate treatment and impact against people in protected classes. Organizations were held liable for discrimination if their policies and procedures effectively excluded people in protected classes or diminished their opportunity—even if that was not the intent of the policy or procedure. This effectively shift ed the burden of proof of discrimination from the employee to the organization.
Affirmative action has been deemed the single most important factor accounting for the growth and sustainment of the African American middle class (Katznelson, 2005; Patterson, 1997). A public policy, it has proven to be one of the most effective tools to advance the nation's commitment to the ideals of equality and fairness. Yet despite all of the gains in access and equality for racial minorities and women attributed to affirmative action, the policies have been challenged politically and legally. Consequently, affirmative action has reached an impasse and has come under increasing scrutiny. Efforts to circumscribe affirmative action began in the late 1970s and gained the support of President Ronald W. Reagan when he was elected in 1980. During his administration, Reagan appointed Cabinet members—and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, an African American man—who were opponents of affirmative action (Goode & Baldwin, 2005; Barry & Bateman, 1996).
One of the reasons affirmative action has come under scrutiny is because of its focus on race. The focus on women's gains through affirmative action has been all but eliminated from the current discussion on the policies. Instead, the discussion has been on racial preferences and benefits for African Americans and on the supposed reverse discrimination against whites. Ironically, women—particularly white women—have joined the ranks of those wanting to dismantle affirmative-action policies. Several scholars (Wise, 1997; Beckhard,...