Diversity Like Mine is OK, Yours is NOT Ok

[ethics]

Here's a scenario many of us are familiar with.

Your company, in its zeal to embrace diversity, places all kinds of lovely posters stating as such. For example, you work for Hewlett Packard, and HP wants everyone to be kind to each other no matter how different all of the workers are. No problems there, right?

Well, there's a case where Richard Peterson who had worked for over 20 years for HP in their Boise, Idaho facility was forced to live in this fairy tale of diversity. Sometime in 2000, HP implemented a cultural diversity (http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/diversity/) program aimed at encouraging employees to appreciate the diverse ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds of their fellow workers. The company began placing posters around the workplace which pictured different employees with labels next them like "black", "old", or "gay" next to the slogan, "Diversity is our strength".

Peterson is a, well, we would describe him as a zealout but he is a "God fearing man" one that is Christian and abides by the Bible's rules. The gay poster was put next to Peterson's cubicle. See where this is headed yet?

He responded (http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/01/010704hpBias.htm) by putting up his own posters, mostly Biblical injunctions against homosexuality. This passage from Leviticus epitomized his oeuvre — "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Peterson was counseled by his supervisor and, ultimately fired. Peterson felt he had a duty, "to expose evil when confronted with it." His lawsuit, seeking damages for lost wages, was dismissed by a federal judge. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/07/MNGKR44TRJ1.DTL) which essentially said that the goal of a non-hostile work environment may trump the rights of some employees to express themselves. The 3-0 decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0135795p.pdf) (PDF document) affirmed Hewlett Packard (HP) Corporation's right to enforce corporate rules against engaging in harassing actions or comments. At odds were the company's ability to discipline and fire employees who violated company policy versus what the appellant claimed was his right to express his religious beliefs.

The Ninth Circuit panel rejected Peterson's claims that he was disparately treated because HP had sponsored the diversity posters and allowed other employees to display religious items and symbols in their workplace. The difference, as the court saw it, was that Peterson's displays were intended to threaten and harass fellow employees and that HP's policies, "were entirely consistent with the goals and objectives of our civil rights statutes generally." Peterson's attorney said that his client intended to take this one to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Who is right here? Is the 9th Circuit ruling predictable? Was HP right to promote diversity this way? Is any company legally protected for doing so?

[mikepd]

The Ninth Circuit panel rejected Peterson's claims that he was disparately treated because HP had sponsored the diversity posters and allowed other employees to display religious items and symbols in their workplace. The difference, as the court saw it, was that Peterson's displays were intended to threaten and harass fellow employees and that HP's policies, "were entirely consistent with the goals and objectives of our civil rights statutes generally."


We are a nation of laws not company policies, individual beliefs, opinions or any other metric, Peterson was counseled yet still chose to continue the same course of action that led to his dismissal.

The true strength of our Country is how we protect those who are presumed to be different from the majority. This will, at times. bump heads with other aspects of society. However, as I see it, for the greater good of the whole, there are times when certain rights must trump others.

Peterson's right to free expression, in this case, must be trumped by the higher need for civil rights for all, regardless of how any majority feels about their status, social, sexual or otherwise.

Just my .02 on the subject.

[btdude]

The true strength of our Country is how we protect those who are presumed to be different from the majority.


This is the only thing I can't see your point on. I am presumed to be different, yet I can't honestly say I feel very well protected these days.

[Frodo Lives]

Peterson's poster was preaching hatred, not diversity. If he had simply asked for the gay poster to be moved and he had been fired, then I would have sided with him. But I am going to have to agree with his termination.

[ShinyTop]

LMAO that this is a serious discussion. People, the asshat put up posters that said to put to death homeosexuals. I really don't give a rat's ass about any other part of the debate, he was dead wrong.

Now for the rest of the debate, I have to agree with MikePD. He was over the line. It's unfortunate that religions that preach love mean only for those who think right.

[Robert Harris]

Peterson should have bee dumped for sheer stupidity.

[Misu]

Peterson's version of diversity was that it was OK for him to basically put up threatening posters and slogans.

If he had simply put in a request to take down the poster by his cubicle - a perfectly understandable request and one that many companies would have obliged with - he wouldn't have had any problems.

The difference between the posters that HP put up and the posters he put up were the HP's posters didn't condone or condemn the people in the posters- the purpose of those posters was simply to promote tolerance of differences. Peterson's posters called for death and blood and all sorts of evil name calling. Peterson's posters clearly condemned homosexuality, and promoted death as a punishment for it.

So what if the posters coincide with his religious beliefs? They still trample on others rights to a harrassment-free workplace. Peterson's rights to free speech and freedom of religion and freedom of expression ended the moment he put up hateful speech on his walls at the office.

[mikepd]

This is the only thing I can't see your point on. I am presumed to be different, yet I can't honestly say I feel very well protected these days.


Having laws on the books and enforcing those laws are two separate things, unfortunately. Also, you cannot legislate away bigotry, stupidity or any other such foolishness.

That has to be done by parents, at first and later reinforced throughout one's life experiences.

In an ideal world, we would cherish our similarities and celebrate our differences. This would apply to much more than social or sexual matters and the world would be a far better place.

[joseftu]

Let's try turning it around. What if I put up a poster that said "Christians should be put to death."
Acceptable diversity statement? No.
You couldn't really find a more clear example of creating a hostile work environment.

He could have put up a "God is Love" or "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. --John 3:16."

I see those posters in people's offices all the time.

[RRedline]

Let's try turning it around. What if I put up a poster that said "Christians should be put to death."
Acceptable diversity statement? No.
You couldn't really find a more clear example of creating a hostile work environment.

He could have put up a "God is Love" or "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. --John 3:16."

I see those posters in people's offices all the time.What if instead of being a homophobic, religious fundamentalist, he were a racist, religious fundamentalist, and instead of what he posted in his cubicle, he displayed actual verses from the Bible that condone slavery? Even though it would be taken right out of the same religious text, I doubt anybody would say that HP would be wrong to terminate him.

Just because something is written in a religious text or just because you 'believe' something, that doesn't give you the right to use your religion to threaten or harass other people. And HP certainly doesn't have to allow anything it doesn't want in its office buildings. If HP wanted to declare posters featuring cute puppies and kittens on them to be off limits, they can do so, even if you worship puppies and kittens.

Mr. Peterson was given warnings, and he refused to obey. Good riddance.

[Techie2000]

Peterson was wrong. Plain and simple. I am just mad that he wasted the courts time and tax dollars with this...:boo:

[FrankF]

Peterson was wrong. He probably should have either complained about the poster, or even take it down off of the wall. But I can understand why he did it... he was fed up with having diversity shoved down his throat. My company is really into "diversity" too.

So they ensure equal employment opportunities for qualified applicants and employees, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin/ancestry. But they sure spend a whole lot of time and money making sure they hire their quota of minority employees. And then put them on the "fast track program" and move them into management so fast nobody else knows what happened. "Workplace diversity" seems to be just another euphamism for "Affirmative Action Program".

[Fiona]

This is the only thing I can't see your point on. I am presumed to be different, yet I can't honestly say I feel very well protected these days.I agree with Mike... and I see your point..... but truly... THIS country strives to give individuals the freedom to BE and be protected... do you think you could be openly homosexual in Africa? or any other "no freedom" country?

[Fiona]

Let's try turning it around. What if I put up a poster that said "Christians should be put to death."
Acceptable diversity statement? No.
You couldn't really find a more clear example of creating a hostile work environment.

He could have put up a "God is Love" or "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. --John 3:16."

I see those posters in people's offices all the time.exactly! when i first heard the report they opened up with wording to infer that he had been asked to remove his "religious freedom" from his desk... which would have pissed me off. But then the report went on... It is completely discriminatory and just wrong.... like techie said,,, plain and simple.

...and Shiny, i think it's worth discussing..... we all pretty much agree... i don't see where someone thinks he should have the right to such displays of open hatrd and discrimination (but that's just me :nut: )

[ethics]

So they ensure equal employment opportunities for qualified applicants and employees, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin/ancestry. But they sure spend a whole lot of time and money making sure they hire their quota of minority employees. And then put them on the "fast track program" and move them into management so fast nobody else knows what happened. "Workplace diversity" seems to be just another euphamism for "Affirmative Action Program".
I agree with everything that everyone wrote about Peterson but Frank's post above needs to be discussed as well.

You can't litigate tolerance. Corporations can instill any types of feel good methods but people will be people. You can educate, make people aware but in the end, I don't know, does it help?

Now to be fair, I don't KNOW what the answer is here.

[ShinyTop]

Business and especially big business is in a no win position. If they are truly color blind they get sued if their ratios are not correct. If they hire to meet the ratios and promote to meet the ratios the people who got passed over or not hired have a complaint. The biggest problem I can see is we are not color blind yet and if we attempt it we get nailed because enough blacks/hispaics/gays/females/shemales/purple people eaters did not WANT to work for us.

Either we are racists in one form or another or we do get color blind and only react when EXTRAORDINARY racism takes place. We spend so much time on proving we are not racists we have become racists in the other direction. I am very tired of it.

[Fiona]

We spend so much time on proving we are not racists we have become racists in the other direction. I am very tired of it.this is my OTHER pet peeve...... reverse discrimination I call it.... damned infuriatin:augh: :banghead:

[Neo]

For once the 9th Circuit was right. As matter of law, in somewhat simplistic terms, one does not have freedom of expression or freedom of speech in the work place or in a "private" environment.

What the guy did was wrong under the lawful rules and policies of his company and possibly the law too! In aggravation what he did was devoid of common sense--in reality his most serious transgression.

What Joseftu said was correct. Also if the guy wanted to bend the envelope he possibly could have gotten away with just posting the Bible verse, e.g. Romans Chapter xx and verse xx, (hypothetical) against homosexuality without quoting any of what it said. Now that would have, from a legal perspective, made a more interesting test case!

[FrankF]

...We spend so much time on proving we are not racists we have become racists in the other direction. I am very tired of it.

That's exactly what big businesses do (my company has about 120,000 employees). They bend over backwards (and step all over themselves in the process) to hire and promote minorities, whether they are as qualified or not for a particular job as another applicant, because:
- It's good PR.
- They don't want to get sued.
- They get tax breaks for hiring certain workers.
- Government contracting rules require it.

People who have been passed over for promotions because a lesser qualified black guy got the job, or who were denied employment because a lesser qualified hispanic guy got the job, or who got laid of instead of the worthless lazy black guy who won't do anything, or the guy who had a stroke who can barely remember his name... are pissed off at "Affirmative Action" programs. So big corporate America has recently come up with a new name for the same old crap..."Diversity". They hope that I am too stupid to see that it is really "Affirmative Action". It is really the same thing though... reverse discrimination.

[Copzilla]

They hope that I am too stupid to see that it is really "Affirmative Action". It is really the same thing though... reverse discrimination.Who was it here that said "There is no reverse discrimination. There's only discrimination."?

It's so true. And it's leftist socialist bullshit. We should always be promoting the most qualified, hiring the best candidate, but we don't in order to satisfy someone's idea of pacifying minorities. If minorities can't compete, then teach them to compete, but don't make them have a phantom edge. In doing so, people destroy the work/reward system that has made our nation great, and turn us into France.

[ethics]

Who was it here that said "There is no reverse discrimination. There's only discrimination."?


A few people, but most notably Matrix (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showpost.php?p=113275&postcount=33).

[FrankF]

Who was it here that said "There is no reverse discrimination. There's only discrimination."?

I call "Affirmative Action" and "Workplace Diversity" programs "reverse discrimination" because that is what it is. These programs (while seeking to right years of wrongs against minorities who were discriminated against in employment), now give preference to minorities who in some cases aren't even qualified to perform the job. Some refuse to learn the job (because they know they can sue if they are fired or laid off)... or demand to be taught how to do their job (even though that is what they are being paid for)... or demand to be put on the "Fast Track" to management (because they know they can sue if they are fired or laid off). Businesses are scared shitless at the idea of being sued, so they put up with it, and put up cute website pages and posters at work promoting their "Diversity Program".

[Techie2000]

What Peterson did was blatent hatred. Something you'd expect from the KKK and such. As far as diversity stuff goes, I think that discussing diversity and talking to people that come from different aspects of life can be very interesting, which is why I love GA...:)

As far as affirmative action goes, I think that it is still somewhat necessary, however I think it should be scaled back, as it appears to have become excessive in many cases.

[Steve]

I've worked for both homogenous and heterogenous companies, and the heterogenous ones are much, much better!

[Copzilla]

I call "Affirmative Action" and "Workplace Diversity" programs "reverse discrimination" because that is what it is.The point was that it's not "reverse" discrimination, it IS discrimination. There is no distinction based on who is the recipient.

By labelling it differently, we intone a difference. If a black discriminates against a white, somehow some people accept that and make excuses for the black person by citing the "disadvantaged" and "underprivileged" and use big words like "disenfranchised", drawing a difference to a white discriminating against a black, which would be categorically demonized, terminated, or even imprisoned.

There should be no distinction. Discrimination isn't reversed, it IS what it is.

[Frodo Lives]

The point was that it's not "reverse" discrimination, it IS discrimination. There is no distinction based on who is the recipient.

By labelling it differently, we intone a difference. If a black discriminates against a white, somehow some people accept that and make excuses for the black person by citing the "disadvantaged" and "underprivileged" and use big words like "disenfranchised", drawing a difference to a white discriminating against a black, which would be categorically demonized, terminated, or even imprisoned.

There should be no distinction. Discrimination isn't reversed, it IS what it is.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[FrankF]

The point was that it's not "reverse" discrimination, it IS discrimination. There is no distinction based on who is the recipient.

By labelling it differently, we intone a difference. If a black discriminates against a white, somehow some people accept that and make excuses for the black person by citing the "disadvantaged" and "underprivileged" and use big words like "disenfranchised", drawing a difference to a white discriminating against a black, which would be categorically demonized, terminated, or even imprisoned.

There should be no distinction. Discrimination isn't reversed, it IS what it is.
I agree... discrimination is discrimination. But there is a difference in how it is perceived. Somehow I am supposed to feel that it is OK for a business to hire or promote a lesser qualified minority person over a more qualified non-minority person... just for no reason other than because they belong to a minority? The reason they do that it is because of "Affirmative Action" rules/laws/mandates/bonuses/PR/crap. Big corporate business America has gone waaaay overboard with this.... hiring based on racial quotas rather than hiring the best person for the job. That is why I call it "reverse discrimination".

[Fiona]

I understand that it IS discrimination... but i think the term can still stand... it shows the origin of the problem... but it really doesn't matter... it's discrimination, prejudice, etc.

[Misu]

If minorities can't compete, then teach them to compete, but don't make them have a phantom edge. In doing so, people destroy the work/reward system that has made our nation great, and turn us into France.

The problem that I have always encountered is that I am not given the opportunity to compete. Many look at me, assume that because I'm female I can't do something, and simply pass me over. In my case, affirmative action would actually give me the chance to show them what I've got.

I agree with many here that affirmative action laws have gone a little too far. I am in total agreement with that. However, people are still people, and ignorance is still rampant. Every one of us walks around this planet with preconceived ideas of how things should be and how people are - and without realizing it, we apply those biases to our everyday lives.

It's not always that the minorities can't compete because they're undereducated - I honestly believe it's more like they're not given the chance to compete.

[Copzilla]

The problem that I have always encountered is that I am not given the opportunity to compete. Many look at me, assume that because I'm female I can't do something, and simply pass me over. In my case, affirmative action would actually give me the chance to show them what I've got.

(snip)

It's not always that the minorities can't compete because they're undereducated - I honestly believe it's more like they're not given the chance to compete.
IF that is the case, then that issue of discrimination should not be addressed with discrimination against someone else. It should be addressed on its own. Would you agree or not agree?

Do you believe that it's okay to discriminate against the most qualified candidate in order to make amends for some discrimination elsewhere?

[Copzilla]

The problem that I have always encountered is that I am not given the opportunity to compete. Many look at me, assume that because I'm female I can't do something, and simply pass me over. In my case, affirmative action would actually give me the chance to show them what I've got.Oh, and one other little item...

This doesn't happen just from men to women. It doesn't happen just from whites to hispanics, or from whites to blacks.

Blacks do it to whites. Hispanics do it to whites. And women do it to men. Where you are disadvantaged at one point is your advantage at another.

In the meantime, all this "corrective action" is screwing the white male, and he's starting to take notice and get pissed. Want to know why the right-wing is waking up in America?

[ShinyTop]

Injustice cannot be corrected by injustice. To the person on the short end of the stick there is no degree of injustice, there is no PC, there is only anger. And the sad part is once this type of injustice begins, all concerned, majority, minority, business, begin to see injustice when there is none. At that point how do you make anybody happy? Discrimination of any kind, even affirmative action, is so ill conceived, so ignorant in idea or practice, that I am still amazed anybody ever thought it served justice or tranquility. It only served to pacify the complainants and in the long run they are as ill served by it as the rest of us.

You fix discrimination by tough law, education of racists of all colors and education of any poorly prepared for the market place. Anything else is a band aid that carries its own infection.

[Techie2000]

Injustice cannot be corrected by injustice. To the person on the short end of the stick there is no degree of injustice, there is no PC, there is only anger. And the sad part is once this type of injustice begins, all concerned, majority, minority, business, begin to see injustice when there is none. At that point how do you make anybody happy? Discrimination of any kind, even affirmative action, is so ill conceived, so ignorant in idea or practice, that I am still amazed anybody ever thought it served justice or tranquility. It only served to pacify the complainants and in the long run they are as ill served by it as the rest of us.You do realize that no discrimination is not only a pipe dream, but a bad idea. No discrimination is in fact one of the goals of socialism/communism. In a no discrimination situation, you wouldn't get a promotion for being the harder worker, because the other person would be discriminated against for not working as hard. When you have a job that involves lifting things, you wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against those who can only carry one box versus the strong guy who can carry 5 at once. Sometimes not only is discrimination practical, but necessary. If there was no discrimination in the military, then women would be able to serve in any roles males serve in, regardless of how strong or weak they are (I have no doubts that there are women that strengthwise can go head to head with many guys in the military, although I am unsure as to how common of an occurance it might be). Also without discrimination in the military those with mental or physical disabilities would be allowed on the front lines given the full duties of a regular combat soldier.

[Neo]

You do realize that no discrimination is not only a pipe dream, but a bad idea...

Excellent post.

I am old enough to remember a time that except in racial terms the word discrimination or its variations such as discriminatory was considered a complimentary term when applied to a person. Overtime the social meaning or usage of the term has changed. Strictly speaking the term in of itself is neutral.

[ShinyTop]

I would have thought it unnecessary to point out I meant discrimination other than for job performance. Need muscle, hire muscle. Need math ability, hire for math ability.

[Robert Harris]

The problem that I have always encountered is that I am not given the opportunity to compete. Many look at me, assume that because I'm female I can't do something, and simply pass me over. In my case, affirmative action would actually give me the chance to show them what I've got.


Good point, Misu. I was thinking about it last night when I noticed that about half of the musicians on stage at a New York Philharmonic concert were women, and the concertmaster was a woman. (Does one say concertmistress?).

When I was young there were almost no women in many of the major symphony orchestras -- no women at all in some except harp players, but male harpists are rare. There was a lot of pressure to change this discrimination, but change was resisted by the men, by unions and by some conductors. Nevertheless, the pressures got too heavy to be resisted so they started auditioning women -- but the good old boys could still resist hiring any of the women. Again pressure played a role and the "blind audition" came into use in a number of places. Candidates for a seat in the orchestra audition behind a curtain. The judges do not know the sex -- or anything else except the musical ability - of the candidates. And guess what -- many more women were hired.

I must have seen a dozen major orchestras in the last year and all of them have lots of women playing. Very different than when I was young. And the orchestras are as good as ever -- maybe better.

So keep up the struggle. :thumbsup:

[Copzilla]

You do realize that no discrimination is not only a pipe dream, but a bad idea. No discrimination is in fact one of the goals of socialism/communism. In a no discrimination situation, you wouldn't get a promotion for being the harder worker, because the other person would be discriminated against for not working as hard. When you have a job that involves lifting things, you wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against those who can only carry one box versus the strong guy who can carry 5 at once. Sometimes not only is discrimination practical, but necessary. If there was no discrimination in the military, then women would be able to serve in any roles males serve in, regardless of how strong or weak they are (I have no doubts that there are women that strengthwise can go head to head with many guys in the military, although I am unsure as to how common of an occurance it might be). Also without discrimination in the military those with mental or physical disabilities would be allowed on the front lines given the full duties of a regular combat soldier.This actually illustrates the point of NO discrimination, Techie, because we're talking about what those opposed to Affirmative Action have been asking for.

Want women in the military combat roles? FINE!!! No, really! Just have them do exactly the same things men do. Same running, same pushups, same carrying of loads. But this isn't want women want. They say "We can't do that, so we deserve lesser standards." THAT is discrimination, because it changes standards based on something other than job capability.

If people can only carry one box and the other guy can carry five, then the guy who can carry five is the more qualified candidate and he needs to be the one hired. That's not discrimination, not based on anything other than capability.

Pure capitalism also promotes no discrimination, because it bases its promotions and hiring on capability only. To usher someone else into the spot in a capitalist society, based on some other extraneous notion, is discrimination.

What we're seeing now is a whiplash effect. Many minorities have been discriminated against. This is true. It should continue to be addressed. But to address it by more discrimination is not the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Fiona]

This actually illustrates the point of NO discrimination, Techie, because we're talking about what those opposed to Affirmative Action have been asking for.

Want women in the military combat roles? FINE!!! No, really! Just have them do exactly the same things men do. Same running, same pushups, same carrying of loads. But this isn't want women want. They say "We can't do that, so we deserve lesser standards." THAT is discrimination, because it changes standards based on something other than job capability.

If people can only carry one box and the other guy can carry five, then the guy who can carry five is the more qualified candidate and he needs to be the one hired. That's not discrimination, not based on anything other than capability.

Pure capitalism also promotes no discrimination, because it bases its promotions and hiring on capability only. To usher someone else into the spot in a capitalist society, based on some other extraneous notion, is discrimination.

What we're seeing now is a whiplash effect. Many minorities have been discriminated against. This is true. It should continue to be addressed. But to address it by more discrimination is not the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right.:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Sierra Mike]

But to address it by more discrimination is not the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Unless you happen to be white, then suffering discrimination is right.

SM