Diversity Executive - September 2008 - (Page 66)

STRATEGIES | R. Roosevelt Thomas Jr. Pluralism and Diversity Distinguishing between the two opens the door for meaningful dialogue The recent Democratic presidential primaries offered a bountiful laboratory in which to deepen our understanding of pluralism and diversity in America. But what exactly, did they suggest? Does, for example, the choice of Sen. Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for president mean U.S. citizens have made their peace with pluralism and diversity? That diversity executives can pack up their tools and go home? Some say “yes.” Commentator Linda Chavez argues the black-white racial divide is no longer the great fault line in American politics. She said the 15 million votes won by Obama and the relative silence about race during the early primaries are evidence supporting her views. On the other hand, author John Jackson Jr. argues political correctness has suppressed inappropriate sentiments about race and racism so much, it’s difﬁcult to tell when racist attitudes are in play. surface. The resulting tension is anathema to many Americans, who have counted on political correctness to suppress or eliminate racism. Their insistence on avoiding diversity tension through political correctness has become the second key barrier to advancing racial progress. This insistence became most evident in the speed and forcefulness with which those who played the race card during the primaries were discredited. In a genuinely diversitycomfortable society, such people would have been essentially ignored. Yet, we pounced on the offenders with frenzy and fear, as if their deviations from political correctness would thrust our entire society into full-ﬂedged race wars — or worse still, as if such indiscretions might require us to admit our diversity progress is less than we hoped. Witness the reaction to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s racial pronouncements. Obama followed the reverend’s YouTube debut with a landmark speech that called for a different discussion about race. Yet, most references to race since the YouTube event have been divisive and full of fear and anger. Clearly, if the American experiment in diversity is to work, we must become more sophisticated about the accompanying tensions. Politically, the challenge is to acknowledge this tension, avoid the temptation to use it to divide and seek to develop “ties that bind,” even in the midst of gutwrenching angst. What is true for the nation is true in organizations, as well. Diversity executives must become more reasoned and ﬂexible in their responses to alleged acts of racism. They should certainly not tolerate these acts, but they should tailor their responses to the consequences of the offending behavior, eschewing emotional outrage as the only viable response. Diversity management — with its emphasis on making quality decisions in the midst of differences, similarities and related tensions — can help. It sharpens the focus on business objectives, thus helping to keep racism in perspective as a continuum along which people can be different and similar. It also provides a framework for making quality decisions in the midst of a difﬁcult situation. « Dr. R. Roosevelt Thomas Jr. is CEO of Roosevelt Thomas Consulting & Training, founder of the American Institute for Managing Diversity and author of six books including Redefining Diversity. He can be reached at editor@diversity-executive.com. Diversity issues arise at the point where behavioral differences surface. My observation of the primaries leads me to believe there is a hope, even a longing, on the part of many for a post-racial society. However, two frequently demonstrated realities, the inability to distinguish pluralism from diversity and an intense aversion to diversity tension, may thwart its achievement. Many Americans who think they are comfortable with diversity are in reality comfortable with pluralism. What is the difference? More speciﬁcally, are the campaigns of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Obama historic milestones of pluralism, diversity or both? If “pluralism” is deﬁned as the presence of multiple variations of an attribute, and “diversity” is deﬁned as differences and similarities in both attributes and behaviors, Clinton’s and Obama’s candidacies are milestones in pluralism. Their campaign successes broke racial and gender barriers and contributed racial and gender pluralism to the ﬁeld of politics. But neither campaign brought much behavioral diversity to the arena. In this respect, these candidacies can be compared to the hiring of Jackie Robinson, America’s ﬁrst black Major League Baseball player. Certainly, this represented a monumental milestone with respect to racial pluralism in baseball. However, it added little or no diversity to the game because Robinson brought few, if any, behavioral variations to the sport. He simply played the game better than most. Why is it important to make this distinction? Because diversity issues arise at the point where behavioral differences 66 Diversity Executive | www.diversity-executive.com | September/October 2008 http://www.diversity-executive.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Diversity Executive - September 2008

Diversity Executive - September 2008 Editor's Letter Contents Leadership Connections Guest Editorial Diversity Executive Online 2042: A New Business Era Begins The Rules of Attraction Where to Look for Diverse Talent Like Minds Think Great Culture Teams Target Business Opportunities at Luxottica Retail Special Section Rebalancing Gender At ING Americas, the Color of Diversity Is Orange Profile Business Intelligence Case Study Strategies Advertisers' Index Editorial Resources

Diversity Executive - September 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.