Diversity - American History, con't

The twentieth century historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote that “...what has held the American people together in the absence of a common ethnic origin has been precisely a common adherence to ideal of democracy and human rights that, too often transgressed in practice, forever goads us to narrow the gap between practice and principle.”

This is a realistic appraisal, acknowledging our country’s shortcomings while calling citizens to our ideals. Critiques of the US, then, should be two dimensional: how we match up or our ideals and also how we match up to other real nations, past and present.

Note America’s capacity for self-criticism. Here is Schlesinger again: The American “literary canon” does not consist of “apologists for the privileged and the powerful” but includes Emerson, Jefferson, Melville, Whitman, Thoreau.

Schlesinger adds: “There remains, however, a crucial difference between the Western tradition and others. The crimes of the West have produced great movements to end slavery, to raise the status of women, to abolish torture, to combat racism, to defend freedom of inquiry and expression, to advocate personal liberty and human rights….- When the Chinese students cried and died for democracy in Tiananmen Square, they brought with them not representations of Confucius or Buddha but a model of the State of Liberty.” Source: Arthur M Schlesinger The Disuniting of America (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992), p. 118, 126, 129


The following summarizes the role of the United States among nations. We live in a country that has a history of success and tragic failures in managing differences. However, “there has surely never been a power in history that has won so many wars and acquired, in consequence, so little territory or extracted so few reparations as the United States after 1917.” Why? Wilson’s idealism, the circumstances of our intervention in the First World war, failure n Mexico, long-term effects of anti-imperialists such as Henry David Thoreau and Mark Twain. Source: Felipe Fernandez-Armesto The Americas: The History of a Hemisphere New York: The Modern Library, a division of Random House, 2006) p. 139

In the next posts we will talk about some of the other nations of the world. After that, we will cover how the US has been able to manage diversity.

Diversity - American History

In past diversity blogs, I have summarized several points of view about the modern diversity movement. I have shown how the word “diversity” in a Supreme Court decision issued on June 28, 1978 spawned a vast movement. I have questioned the doctrine that “diversity” is somehow good for American businesses. I have talked about the Individual Differences Perspective of diversity and its lack of boundaries. I have said less about the Social Justice perspective but I will beginning in this post. I have suggested that there is a certain degree of triteness and some unhealthy stereotyping in the individual Differences Perspective.

This post begins to examine history s a guide to diversity.

The Social Justice Perspective often has within it a critique of American society and history.

Here are quotes from books on diversity:
 “This book is about the struggle against oppression in organizations and the promise of diversity....Our institutions have failed to eliminate harassment and ongoing discrimination against women of color, men of color, white women, gays, lesbians, people with disabilities, older workers, younger workers, and others who are systematically excluded….We continue to feel the effects of a legacy of oppression: slavery, genocide, indentured servitude, …..(T)he oppressed cry out for immediate action.” Source: Ellie Y. Cross, Judith H. Katz, Frederick A. Miller and Edith W. Seashore, eds. The Promise of Diversity (New York: Irwinn 1994), p. xxi

 One book is dedicated (besides to various family members) to “all the women and men who are pioneers, champions and allies in organizations, in appreciation of your commitment to creating workplaces that are liberating for your generation and those that follow.” Source: Frederick A. Miller and Judith H. Katz The Inclusion Breakthrough: Unleashing the Real Power of Diversity (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2002)

 One book claims that the “ Eurocentric” version of the American dream includes such points of views as, “War is the ultimate competition”, the “Ultimate goal: To be Number One.” “Those who accumulate the most of what costs the most are the winners…” (Norma Carr-Ruffino Managing Diversity: People Skills for a Multicultural Workplace (USA: Thompson Executive Press, 1994), p. ix, 243)

In my view, these pronouncements profoundly misread the American experience. I will try to show that to be the case in subsequent posts.

The way that I will do that is to refer to the work of distinguished historians. Then I will point out some of the egregious social conditions existing in other modern cultures. Then I will examine the American constitutional set up and what it accomplished. The point of the next several posts is that the American experience embodies Real Diversity and has much to teach the world.

Diversity - Stereotyping, conclusion

This post adds some examples of stereotyping from William Sonnenschein The Practical Executive and Workforce Diversity (Lincolnwood: NTC Business Books, 1997) p. 57-8. Sonnenschein produces a table taken from Lee Gardenschwartz and Anita Rowe Managing Diversity (New York: Irwin Professional Publishing, 1993) Gardenshwartz and Rowe contrast what they call Mainstream American Culture with what they call Different Cultures.


People in the former have “Explicit, direct communication. Emphasis on content – meaning found in words.” People in the latter have “Implicit, indirect communication Emphasis on context – meaning found around words.”

The former see "eating as a necessity." The latter see “dining as a social experience.” The former are “Linear. Logical. Sequential,” the latter are “Lateral, holistic, simultaneous. Accepting life’s difficulties.”

It is my contention that these types of generalizations are debatable and either irrelevant to workplaces or potentially harmful. Time spent on contrasting such obscure categories as "Mainstream American culture" and "Different Cultures" is wasteful of resources. The stereotypes defeat the conclusion that we are all individuals.

The next post will move from the topic of stereotyping to a view of history as a guide to Real Diversity.

Diversity Movement - Stereotyping

Diversity authors tend to deal with the issue of stereotypes in two ways. First, they criticize “stereotyping” others which they typically define in absolute terms. Here are Renee Bland and Sandra Slipp: “Stereotyping attributes to all individuals in a group the characteristics or tendencies of some." Source: Renee Blank and Sandra Slipp, Voices of Diversity (New York: American Management Association, 1994), p. 8. Here is Kay DuPont: “Stereotyping occurs when we apply our biases to all members of a group. If you were raised to think that all members of a particular ethnic group are lazy, you may still hold this stereotype…” Source: Kay DuPont, CSP (Stands for Certified Speaking Professional) Handling Diversity Issues in the Workplace West (Des Moines: American Media Publishing, 1997), p. 50.

I think we can recognize “all” as a loophole. It allows diversity authors to make lots of comments about individuals in groups and with the single caveat that these generalizations do not apply to every single member of the group, they apparently are not stereotyping. (I wonder if this sort of deep thinking impressed the reviewers at the American Management Association which published Blank and Slipp.)
And, Blank and Slipp and DuPont to engage in what to most people would look like stereotyping:

Bland and Slipp: “Women tend to have a more participatory, interactive management style than men. Latinos tend not to separate work and personal relationships as much as most non-Latinos do.” (p. 7) “Except for Filipinos…the Asian-American described here have strong Buddhist and Confucian backgrounds…” (p. 36)

DuPont: wants managers to know that with regard to business cards, “Native-Born Americans” do not automatically exchange them, “Mexican-Americans” prefer to exchange them at the beginning of a meeting and “Japanese Americans” prefer to exchange cards before shaking hands (or bowing.) With regard to negotiation style, the first group doesn’t worry about building relationships, the second will appeal to personal relationships and the third will try to build a personal relationship before a business relationship. This sort of stereotyping goes on and on without any sourcing (p. 73-74)

The Diversity Movement – Is it Trite?, conclusion and transition

When Justice Powell opened up the door to factors other than race being relevant at to achieve diversity (see post on August 26, 2007) consultants raced through with their something-for-everyone approach. So we hear groups talking about their diversity in a manner that is nothing more that their individual personality differences – one likes baseball, not football; one grew up in a town and the other grew up in a mid-size city; one likes cats and the other dogs and on and on. One of the more popular diversity issues has to do with the “generational personality.

The generational personality is a view that the era into which one was born greatly affects and separates people. Baby Boomers are the most talked-about “generation.” This is deceptive because at one level it can sound like an interesting and relevant discussion about the difference between young people and middle age people. But that misreads the thesis. The point the advocates are making is that people born between certain arbitrarily set years gain a common personality that links them and that they carry throughout their life cycle. So, young people don’t mature into old people; rather, baby boomers take a trait – usually the example of supposed defiance of authority is conjured up - through life whereas the generation that proceeds (or follows) them might be more accommodating toward authority throughout the life cycle. Regardless of the merits of this unproven theory, the consultants hustling this notion claim that “It is Diversity management at its most challenging. The obvious markers of race and sex have less clear impact on differences and signal less in the way of differential treatment than do generational differences.” Source: Ron Zemke, Claire Raines and Bob Filipczak, Generations at Work (New York: American Management Association, 2000), p. 25.

The generational personality approach usually requires its promoters to twist reality. At the National Labor-Management Conference of 2006, Commissioners from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service presented a workshop designed to help participants recognize the strengths and obstacles of their own age group (Traditionalists, Boomers, Xers and Millennials in dealing with others. Their promotional material has this come-on: “Can’t we all just get along? Well frankly, no.”
Source: http://www.fmcs.gov/internet/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=238&itemID=17866

This is nonsense. The generational personality literature written as late as 2000 defines these four groups as four generations with the “Traditionalists” typically World War II veterans. These four groups do not co-exist in the modern workplace because the war veterans would need to be 80 at the youngest. Even if the FMCS staff presented these generatons slightly changed from other varieties (Different presenters of the Gernational Personality theory change the years in a quite facile manner), Traditionalists would be born before 1946 but still young enough to be working in 2006, a dwindling slice of the workforce with alleged different needs that managers need to take into account from those born in 1947. Second, it is insulting to workers and managers to assume that they need to understand this generational personality pseudo-social science to get along. Finally, it is insulting to the Diversity movement to link this oddity to the purpose of Diversity.

A more bizarre example of denying reality is the claim of Ron Zemke and his writing partners in Generations at Work. This book published in 2000 by the American Management Association makes the claim, more than once, that the American population shrank in the two hundred years or so before 1946 due to the hardship of life and the Civil War and the Depression of the 1930’s. Source: Zemke, et al , p. 14, 64. The population in the 1790 census was about 5 Million. It has grown in every decade. I have written on this topic elsewhere. Source: Jim Pruitt, Training January 2002. This criticism of a book published by the AMA is not hair splitting.

The Generational Personality theory is trite and it helps make the Diversity Movement trite because it can entice managers and workers into talking about non-threatening issues like the varying entertainment tastes of Baby Boomers and Millennials and thereby allows them to assert that they are committed to diversity. It reduces the need for hard choices and hard coversations about race, ethnicity and gender. It is not surprising that consultants would exploit this opening and it is not surprising that people would find it easier to talk about this topic than race relations. It is surprising (at least to me) that African Americans have allowed this notion to trivialize the Diversity Movement.

The point of the next posts is that this type of triviality leads to stereotyping people.

The Diversity Movement – Is it Trite?, con't

Teachings and writings on diversity often lack content. In this post we will look at one of the catch-phrases of diversity, the so-called “platinum rule.” It’s a diversity “improvement” on Jesus Christ.
The Golden Rule by Jesus of Nazareth is rendered as follows: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” Source: Matthew 7:12.
“… (T) he Platinum rule…was described by Dr. Milton Bennet in the book Basic Concepts of intercultural Communications (Intercultural Press, 1998). This is an expansion of the Golden Rule, which has been a time-honored practice that permeates many religious beliefs. In telling us to ‘Treat other as you want to be treated,’ its intentions are sound. It was designed to prevent us from doing harm to others – things that others obviously would not like.”
“With the increasing complexity of our society, we can now add to the Golden Rule in order to account for people’s different and unique needs. This enables us to move beyond ‘one size fits all.’ By assuming that someone else wants what we do, we can’t take into account that person’s uniqueness. The Platinum Rule gives others permission to be different from us, and reminds us to honor that difference.”

“The Platinum Rule is to treat others as they want to be treated.” Source: Tina Rasmussen, Diversity Mosaic Participant Workbook: Developing Cultural Competence (San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, published by Pfieffer, 2007), p. 19
Earlier, in 1994, Professor Norma Carr-Ruffino had identified the same improvement on Christianity. Source: Norma Carr-Ruffino, Managing Diversity: People Skills for a Multicultural Workplace (USA: Thompson Executive Press, 1994), p. 13
It is common to hear diversity trainers talk about the “platinum rule” (often without crediting Bennet, Rasmussen or Carr-Ruffino) without realizing their condescension toward the beliefs of tens of millions of Christians. The Golden Rule is not, as Dr. Milton Bennet opined, “to prevent us from doing harm to others.”
As the second president of the United States, John Adams wrote: “The precept …do as you would be done by, implies an equality which is the real equality of nature and Christianity...” Source: Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind: from Burke to Eliot, Seventh Revised Edition (Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.: 1953, 1960, 1972, 1985, 2001 printing), p. 95
Isn’t it possible that Jesus was teaching understanding and empathy and equality rather than teaching people to impose their standards on others? (That itself would be a violation of the Golden Rule.)

The Diversity Movement – Is it Trite?

In the 1948 presidential campaign in the US, Republican nominee Thomas Dewey said: "The highest purpose to which we could dedicate ourselves is to rediscover the everlasting variety among us." Source: David E. Johnson and Johnny R. Johnson, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the White House: Foolhardiness, Folly and Fraud in Presidential Elections, from Andrew Jackson to George W. Bush (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2007), p. 109

Dewey was criticized for the banality of this statement. But was it more banal than the jargon of the modern Diversity movement?

Here is Kodak: “The more diverse the points of view, the broader the vision.” Source: DiversityInc. May 2006, p. 57

Here is Staples:
“Diversity is in our soul.” Source: Diversityinc. June 2006, p. 83

Here is the University of Nebraska:
“Diversity is the multiplicity of people, cultures and ideas that contribute to the richness and variety of life. Diversity broadly encompasses the mixture of similarities and differences along several dimensions: race, national origin, ability, religion, sexual orientation, age and gender. It includes values, cultures, concepts, learning styles and perceptions that individuals possess. By its very nature, diversity fosters inclusiveness, encourages the exchange of new ideas, improves decision-making, and broadens the scope of problem-solving.” (The Strategic Plan for Diversity At The University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2006-2011)
This is jargon and jargon typically deludes people into thinking they are saying something meaningful.

We will next go to another example of jargon. Then we will look at how this leads to stereotyping.

The Two Views of Diversity , conclusion and transition

What we have seen is that the definitions of diversity, when developed in organizations, all tend to mean something very ordinary – that people are different in different dimensions. This is a concept that people can readily accept and, in fact, enjoy. It has been taught in human resource circles long before the modern diversity movement. Here is a typical statement from a personnel book in the early 1960s:

“Effective personnel management is to a great extent based on the premise that people differ significantly from one another in many respects.” Source: Wendell L French, The Personnel Management Process: Human Resource Administration (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964), p. 22

Here is another from a section in a personnel book on communications:“(In addition to other factors having to do with organizational level and role), there may be overlapping of political, racial, religious, color, and job groupings. It is unwise to group all employees as being under the political influence of Democrats, Republicans or labor unions. To address communications in terms of one grouping alone will certainly antagonize the others. And similarly, it is unwise to assume that all employees hold the same views on race, color, and creed – even those of the same race, color, and creed.” Source: Michael J Jucius, Personnel Management (Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc, 1977, seventh edition, 1971) p. 316)

But the modern diversity movement means something different.

First, some differences are far more important than others: One major book on diversity reports without irony that “Bailey Jackson was one of the first people to identify that some differences matter more than others. Those that make the biggest difference are ethnicity, gender, marital status (and children), race, sexual orientation, language, physical ability, socioeconomic status, religion and mental ability.” Source: Frederick A. Miller and Judith H. Katz, The Inclusion Breakthrough: Unleashing the Real Power of Diversity (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2002), pp. 3-4)

Really. Read the first sentence in the previous paragraph again and ask how anyone could believe that in some recent time someone was the first to make this “discovery.”

Second, the focus should be on change. Here is Fredrick Miller in 1994: “There is a belief that diversity should be about individual differences. We might call this the Individual Differences perspective. But there is also the belief that diversity should be about correcting the injustices visited upon people and groups. We might call this the Social Justice perspective.” (Source: Ellie Y. Cross, Judith H. Katz, Frederick A. Miller and Edith W. Seashore, eds. The Promise of Diversity (New York: Irwin 1994)

We will next cover the broad view of diversity – the Individual Differences perspective. We have previously questioned the claim that somehow “diversity” is good for business. Now we will ask:
1. Is it trite?
2. Does it lead to sterotyping?
3. Is it polarizing?
4. Is it good for Blacks?
5. Does it leave out issues?

The Two Views of Diversity, con't

This is a continuation of the September 9, and September 29, 2007 posts. Here are three more defintions of "diversity" from writers in this field:


“Differences are what diversity is all about. Although many organizations are now offering diversity training for their employees, diversity is not really a skill or something for which you can be trained. Diversity simply means “differences, and in this book it means ‘differences in people.’ Whether diversity becomes an asset or a liability to you and your organization depends on how you use it.” Source: Kay DuPont, CSP (Stands for Certified Speaking Professional) Handling Diversity Issues in the Workplace (West Des Moines: American Media Publishing, 1997), p. 9


“Diversity refers to any mixture of items characterized by differences and similarities.” Source: R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. Redefining Diversity (New York: AMACOM American Management Association, 1996), p. 5

Roosevelt Thomas's definition of diversity is similar, but not identical ten years later:

"Diversity refers to the differences, similarities, and related tension that exist in any mixture. Note especially that the term includes differences and similarities. Diversity is not limited to issues of race and gender, nor is it confined to the workforce." Source: R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. Building on the Promise of Diversity: How We can Move to the Next Level in Our Workplaces, Our Communities and Our Society. (New York, Atlanta, Brussels, Chicago, Mexico city, San Francisco, Shanghai, Tokyo, Toronto, Washington DC: AMACOM American management Association, 2006), p. xi

The Two Views of Diversity, con't

This is a continuation of the September 9, 2007 post. Here are three more defintions of "diversity." All three are from writers in this field:


“Diversity has many definitions. At its core it means embracing differences. For the purposes of this book and addressing diversity in the workplace, diversity is defined in terms of people - measurable human capital, specifically, groups of people who have not traditionally been part of the workplace majority. These groups include: blacks; Latinos; Asian Americans; Native Americans; women in executive roles; individuals with disabilities; gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people.” Source: Gwen Moran, The Business Case for Diversity (Newark: Allegiant Media, 2006), p. 5

“Diversity means that one’s workforce is made up of people from different backgrounds.” Source: William Sonnenschein, The Practical Executive and Workforce Diversity Lincolnwood: NTC Business Books, 1997), p. 17


“…diversity is the mosaic of people who bring a variety of backgrounds, styles, perspectives, beliefs and competencies as assets to the groups and organizations with whom they interact. Source: Tina Rasmussen, Diversity Mosaic Participant Workbook: Developing Cultural Competence (San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, published by Pfieffer, 2007), p. 1

The next post will continue in this vein. The one after that will begin some analysis.

The Two Views of Diversity

Justice Lewis Powell’s decision (See post on August 26, 2007) provided the foundation to expand the definition of diversity.

Powell’s definition of diversity meant, well, about anything: “The file of a particular black applicant may be examined for his potential contribution to diversity without the factor of race being decisive when compared, for example, with that of an applicant identified as an Italian-American if the latter is thought to exhibit qualities more likely to promote beneficial educational pluralism. Such qualities could include exceptional personal talents, unique work or service experience, leadership potential, maturity, demonstrated compassion, a history of overcoming disadvantage, ability to communicate with the poor, or other qualifications deemed important. In short, an admissions program operated in this way is flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements same weight. Indeed, the weight attributed to a particular quality may vary from year to year…”

In the last generation, institutions, writers and employers have developed definitions of diversity. The next two posts will list some these definitions and then conclude with an analysis of what all this means.

Here is one from the University of Nebraska:

“Diversity is the multiplicity of people, cultures and ideas that contribute to the richness and variety of life. Diversity broadly encompasses the mixture of similarities and differences along several dimensions: race, national origin, ability, religion, sexual orientation, age and gender. It includes values, cultures, concepts, learning styles and perceptions that individuals possess. By its very nature, diversity fosters inclusiveness, encourages the exchange of new ideas, improves decision-making, and broadens the scope of problem-solving.”

Here is one from a writer:

“This book defines diversity simply as significant differences among people, though we will concentrate on race, culture, gender, sexual orientation, age and physical abilities. Some definitions include differences in ethnicity, nation of origin, class, religion, learning and communication styles, where people come from, and occupation as aspects of diversity. Source: William Sonnenschein, The Diversity Toolkit: How you can Build and Benefit From A Diverse Workforce (Lincolnwood, Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1997, 1999), p. 3

The point on both of these is the broadness almost to include anything on what "diversity" means. More examples will follow and then, some analysis.

Diversity and the "Bottom Line", con't

I think most Americans supported and would still support President Johnson’s classic statement on Affirmative Action in 1965:

“You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains, and liberate him and bring him to the starting line of a race and then say 'You are free to compete with all others' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.”

Yet the diversity movement has muddled this type of clear thinking. It has turned diversity into one more HR program. As a consequence, diversity consultants try to show relevance to the business world. Here,in my view, is one example.

Diversity Blues by Gladys Gossett Hankins, PhD published in 2000 makes this statement: “The annual productivity increase in the United States is around three percent a year. Today, some nations are exceeding that rate….What is happening inside American corporations that causes them to produce less than optimally”

This of course is a very soft statement (i.e., “some nations”). Here is a harder statistic:

In the 1980s and '90s the U.S. created about 40 million new jobs; Western Europe created some 10 million, well over half of which were in the public sector. If this divergence in economic performance continues for 40 years, the American worker will be roughly twice as wealthy as his European counterpart.” (Source OpinionJournal.com June 3, 2005 OECD)

Dr. Haskins is not, to my knowledge, an economist. She holds a Ph.D in Organizational Behavior and Development from the Union Institute at Cincinnati, Ohio.

Diversity and the "Bottom Line", con't

I have read several current diversity books. Most promote diversity as good for business. But this claim is dubious.

One author writes: “Diversity is challenging, yes, but it is also richer, livelier, more fun, and ultimately more profitable.”

I wrote this author asking to be directed to research supporting the benefits of diversity for corporations. Her answer: “I wish I could, Jim. I never could find it when I was teaching diversity in corporations either!”

Another author wrote about diversity in business that – “Numerous studies have documented the benefits.”

I wrote asking for research. The author responded by citing the Kochan study (see post on August 29, 2007.) I responded by pointing out that the Kochan study seemed to conclude the opposite. The author responded that Kochan “wound up pretty anti-diversity, but a number of other researchers who co-wrote the paper didn't.” I have read the entire Kochan report and see no evidence for this author's point of view. I can only wonder if the author, associated with the University of California read it.

I wrote other authors who had offered similar points of view about the positive effects of diversity but got no response.

Some of these books are prefaced by Roosevelt Thomas, dedicated to Oprah Winfrey and sometimes published by the American Management Association. Yet they leave one unconvinced that modern diversity programs are particularly good for businesses.

My conclusion is not "anti-diversity." It is that the claims that diversity programs are good for business are glib and unproven.

Diversity and the "Bottom Line", con't

One of the constant claims about "diversity" is that it increases business success. This claim should be looked at carefully.

One entry to this debate is:

The Business Case for Diversity by Gwen Moran (Newark: Allegiant Media, 2006). On page 3 this book states that “Managers who need the cold, hard facts to support a proposal for increased diversity will find them here.”

Here is what I found:

1. A claim that at PepsiCo, affinity groups helped contribute to adding 1 percent to the corporate bottom line by providing input on such products as guacamole-flavored Doritos and soft drinks aimed at black consumers. Occasionally, this claim is presented in soft language (“helped contribute” ) In any event, it is tedious but possibly revealing that in this report this claim is asserted at least three times.
2. DiversityInc, the magazine linked with The Business Case for Diversity compared its list of award-winning companies in 2005 with Standard and Poors. Here is what it found: “All publicly traded companies in The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity have been placed in a stock index, which is calculated by Standard & Poors. When examined over a 10 year period, with dividends reinvested, The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity Index yields a 23.5 percent higher return than the Standard & Poors 500.” To point out the obvious: if there was any proof or even evidence of causality, I missed it.

There is little in this book that I found significant.

None of this is to criticize diversity programs per se. We just need to subject all claims of business improvement to careful scrutiny.

Diversity and the "Bottom Line"

Numerous modern diversity consultants have claimed that diversity programs are good for business profits. But it that true?

Thomas Kochan is a Professor at MIT. He is past president of both the International Industrial Relations Association and the Industrial Relations Research Association. Some of Kochan’s recent books include: Restoring the American Dream: A Working Families’ Agenda for America; Management: Inventing and Delivering its Future; Working in America: A Blueprint for the Labor Market, Learning from Saturn; Managing for the Future: Organizational Behavior and Processes, 3rd edition, 2004; An Introduction to Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations, 3rd ed. 2003; In 1988 his book, The Transformation of American Industrial Relations received the annual award from the Academy of Management for the best scholarly book on management. Here is his take on the diversity industry:


“The diversity industry is built on sand…The business case rhetoric for diversity is simply naïve and overdone.” (Fay Hansen Workforce April 2003)

How Did "Diversity" Come To Be?

The history of how the modern diversity movement came about is straightforward, but not very well-known.

In 1978, a case came before the US Supreme Court. The decision became important in the ensuing decades but only in ways not anticipated at the time. The University of California at Davis Medical School had denied the application of Alan Bakke who sued under the Civil Rights Act. The school agreed that Bakke had been passed over in favor of less-qualified minority candidates but said that it had a right to do so under its Affirmative Action program. The public saw this case as one that provided for a test of reverse discrimination. The Court found for Bakke and determined that he was entitled to go to the school but the decision was 5-4 and there were six separate opinions. The swing vote was Lewis Powell, a Nixon appointee. Powell wrote: “The file of a particular black applicant may be examined for his potential contribution to diversity without the factor of race being decisive when compared, for example, with that of an applicant identified as an Italian-American (emphasis added) if the latter is thought to exhibit qualities more likely to promote beneficial educational pluralism. Such qualities could include exceptional personal talents, unique work or service experience, leadership potential, maturity, demonstrated compassion, a history of overcoming disadvantage, ability to communicate with the poor, or other qualifications deemed important. In short, an admissions program operated in this way is flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements same weight. Indeed, the weight attributed to a particular quality may vary from year to year…”

Not a single justice endorsed Powell’s comment on diversity. Yet the citing of diversity by Powell was to become, by far, the most significant part of the case. “The idea of diversity as a legitimate goal for those who shape the future of our society sprang into existence on June 28, 1978, when Justice Lewis Powell of the United States Supreme Court issued his opinion in Regents of the University of California v Bakke.” Source: Peter Wood, Diversity: The Invention of a Concept (San Francisco, Encounter Books, 2003), p. 99. Wood is an excellent source to whom I owe much on this topic.

Sprang into existence” is not a careless figure of speech:

• The UC Davis Medical school had opened only in 1968 and did not have record of discrimination.
• The arguments before the Court were about grades and test scores. Both ides focused on numbers, not diversity.
• The University did not make a developed argument about diversity.
• There is little mention in the newspapers of the 1970’s about diversity (in the modern sense.)
• There are no law review articles pre-Bakke that focus on diversity in … (the diversity-is-educationally worthwhile) sense…” Recall: this was the era of forced desegregation and court ordered busing.
• Diversity does not appear in a reverse discrimination case of the early 1970’s involving a law school – DeFunnis v Odegaard (1973)
• Powell cited no decisions.

In effect, Powell refused to choose between two blocks of his colleagues, both of which stood for principled positions. One block held for straight
Affirmative Action. The other block held for a color blind approach. Powell wrote of "diversity" and created a social movement.