About half my white Seattle friends and neighbors who voted for Barack Obama did not do so because 
of the color of his skin, but because he is smart, educated, articulate, traveled, and seems to listen. He surrounds himself with people who may know more than he does and encourages active debate.
The black voters I spoke to admitted to being partial to him because it could be, and now is, such a strong statement to elect a person of color as leader of this nation. I smile because it appears his color may have meant more to black voters than to many whites.
Obama is racially and ethnically blended – only partially black, as a race, and Kenyan as an ethnicity, and partially white as a race, and Irish as an ethnicity. A mutt, actually. Back in the day, he would have been called mulatto, and he is more similar to the growing majority of people as the world becomes smaller and more interracial unions take place.
Barack was raised in several geographic areas (Kansas, Hawaii, Jakarta), cultures (Midwestern, Hawaiian, Indonesian), and religions (Muslim, Catholic, and Atheism) and educated in schools with rich, sometimes conflicting views of the world. In addition to his spending his youth abroad, he lived in LA, New York, Chicago, and Illinois, Ohio, and Massachusetts. All of this background (geography, race, affiliations, exposures, family cultures, education) makes Barack a uniquely diverse individual.
In his article “The Changing Definition of Workplace Diversity,” William G. Shackelford writes: “In its broadest context, diversity candidates are being defined as “individuals who bring unique perspectives or outlooks to the organization.”
The new definition of diversity includes the traditional categories of race and gender. In addition, it includes people with disabilities, gays and lesbians, and other non-traditional categories. One of the most interesting categories being used by some employers is “diversity of thought,” which they say can be obtained by hiring individuals with different degrees, college affiliations, education, or social economic backgrounds.
According to this relatively new body of research metrics and projections, we will undoubtedly be looking at changing definitions of minorities (e.g. women currently comprise nearly half of the labor force) and enhancing our recruiting strategies to include many more types of diversity.
How many expanded definitions of each can you come up with? You can use this as a guide, also from Shackelford: “Sociologist Louis Wirth defined a minority group as ‘a group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination.’”
For instance, take the definition of minority. Will it include those of particular blended race combinations? For example, will there be a new minority of those who are 1/3 Indian, 1/3 White, and 1/3 Hispanic? If you are only 1/4 black, but definitely look black, are you in a certain discrimination class? How long before Asian women no longer qualify to fill affirmative action quotas? Which foreigners entering the U.S. in the next decade will create a new minority? By 2010, the Hispanic labor force is projected to be larger than the African American labor force, and Asians will continue to be the fastest growing group in the labor force.
One of the most interesting questions I ponder these days is will the expanded definitions of diversity actually create new classes of minorities? For instance, will “no college degree” become a minority and/or a protected class? We must face the possibility that education may be the next minority issue. And will you be able to de-select job candidates legally if they have no second language or have not lived in another country, for instance?
Popularity: 12% [?]
November 10th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Great article, Colleen. It’s amazing that more people in the election focused on his accomplishments or qualities versus his race. Yet they have been constantly reminded of guilt for which they still “owe” something. The real guilt should be carried by those in politics who constantly reminded the African American community of their past and victimhood – giving no hope to them that they (not the party) could make a better future for themselves. Democrats failed, Obama won.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Colleen its dangerous to take identify politics to their logical end, which is where your questions go regarding other ‘protected classes’.
William is right but maybe for the wrong reasons. Identity politics present major moral problems; there is no clean way to ration opportunity based on anything but individual performance.
Affirmative action v. action that levels the playing field is the moral question. Its not a matter of “guilt” or “debt”, its a matter of justice.
IMHO there should be one and only one protected class: the poor. And the protection should only seek to level the game, not to advance any player until such time as no more leveling action is needed.
The protection should take the form of educational opportunity and a reasonable welfare safety net so that the poor can compete for jobs on the basics of being able to get to work in the first place in some kind of condition to work a full day and return to some kind of home.
A very wise man once told me that any human problem capable of solution can be solved in one way (at least): throw dollars at the problem.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
this is (was) a recruiting blog…yes?
November 10th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Thanks, Robert… Yes it is and was meant to be a blog post for our world of Recruiting and not politics… although “politics” is the maneuvering of human beings…
But i would rather see us stay on topic, which is about diversity in the workplace, what diversity means now and in the future, and how definitions may, in fact, increase some possibility of creating classes of “have nots”…
And, further… in a global sense, if we are producing more and more blended (race and ethnicity) humans, will discrimination change? Lessen? Stay the same? Increase? Will discrimination no longer be about race and ethnicity and more about education, affiliation, power, circles of influence, global reach, language expertise, travel experience….?
November 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Colleen, Highly appropriate point of view. I do wonder if the walls of employment discrimination will completely fall away any time soon as a result of the election. While I have absolute faith in the next generation I have less hope that the mindset of the current generation is changed regarding who gets hired…We can hope. We did hire a minority to lead the most influential country in the free world.
Good Blog. I love that you keep the conversation rolling on this all important topic because this sort of dialogue does much to lower the walls. You rock.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Thanks, Rita. I have much respect for your years in the recruiting industry, and admire your coaching work with candidates and hiring managers alike (www.jobsearchdebugged.com). We need more readily-accessible advisors like you out there to help executives navigate these changing times keep setting the bar higher for the word “professionalism” in the hiring process.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Very interesting post. I’ve never been more proud to be an American as I was the day we elected a minority (not just any minority – a brilliant man) to lead our nation. I truly believe this a statement on where we are as a nation and where we are heading. It’s very inspiring.