"We Are An Equal Opportunity Employer":Diversity Doublespeak
"We Are An Equal Opportunity Employer":Diversity Doublespeak
复制标题
“我们是机会均等的雇主”：多元化双言
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Cheryl L. Wade
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cheryl L. Wade
I. 2004年1月，我参加了在纽约市举行的第七届彩虹/PUSH华尔街项目年会。由老杰西杰克逊牧师创立的华尔街项目的使命是，是为了确保“美国服务不足的消费者、雇员和企业家的平等机会。获得资本、工业和技术仍然是当今民权运动的最后阶段。“1对我来说特别重要的是两个小组，题为“包容倡导者--劳动力多样性主管、供应商多样性主管和社区事务主管的角色如何在9/11和经济衰退后发生变化？最佳实践：跨国公司为避免多样性危机所采取的措施。“在这两个小组中，来自几家上市公司的不同和精心制作的头衔的多元化高管。2每个演讲者都对他们公司的多元化努力进行了奉承的描述。每位演讲者都用同样的词来描述他们公司对种族平等的渴望--“多样性”、“获得机会”、“包容性”。当我听他们的演讲时，我想起了一本关于“双峰”现象的书。这本书的副标题是：“政府、企业、广告商和其他人如何使用语言欺骗你。[5]作者用以下方式定义了“双峰”：假装交流但实际上不交流的语言。正是语言使坏事看起来很好，消极的事情看起来很积极，不愉快的事情看起来很有吸引力，或者至少是可以忍受的。怀疑是回避或转移责任的语言。. . .是语言隐藏或阻止了思想;而不是扩展思想，而是怀疑限制了它。. . .质疑的基础是不协调，即所说或未说的话与真实情况之间的不协调。在我花了3小时15分钟听两个小组的演讲者演讲的过程中，没有一个演讲者说出“歧视”这个词。“没有一个小组成员谈到反歧视法和他们的公司监督遵守这一法律的努力。歧视，“D字，“我猜，是在这样的聚会上不惜一切代价避免的绰号。他们对歧视和种族主义保持沉默，这意味着他们的结论是，这些问题已经在他们的公司内部得到解决，如果这些问题曾经存在的话。他们的沉默意味着，公司管理者唯一需要解决的问题是将有色人种纳入上市公司创造的财富，获得平等的机会和多样性。这是多样性的挑战，我带着未解之谜离开了两个小组。小组成员是否代表了杰出的公司？小组成员工作的公司是否已经解决了歧视问题，以至于不再需要讨论？有多少有色人种是他们公司的高级管理人员？有色人种，特别是非洲裔美国人，是否与白人的晋升率相同？非洲裔美国人的工资和他们的白色同行一样吗？因为有些小组同时举行，我不能参加所有的会议。我在会议日程上搜索了一个小组，任何小组，关于上市公司内部持续存在的种族主义和歧视问题。我只找到了关于“包容”、“获取”和“多样性”的讨论。“然而，至少对我来说，种族歧视似乎仍然是企业员工、社区、消费者和有色人种供应商的一个问题。否则人们怎么解释白人和非洲裔美国人之间的经济差距呢？2002年，黑人家庭的平均收入是白色家庭收入的64.9%，7黑人男性的收入是白色男性收入的73.9%。8“自2000年3月股市泡沫破裂以来，黑人失业率飙升至近11%，是白人的两倍。受伤的不仅仅是技能较低的黑人。2002年，受雇的黑人经理和专业人员人数下降。…
I. Introduction: Diversity DoublespeakIn January 2004, I attended the Seventh Annual Rainbow/PUSH Wall Street Project Conference in New York City. The mission of the Wall Street Project, founded by Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr., is to assure "equal opportunity for America's underserved consumers, employees and entrepreneurs. Access to capital, industry and technology continues to be the last stage of today's civil rights movement."1 Of particular importance to me were two panels entitled "Inclusion Advocates-How Have the Roles of Workforce Diversity Directors, Supplier Diversity Directors and Community Affairs Executives Changed Post 9/11 and Recession?," and "Best Practices: The Steps Multinational Corporations Are Taking to Avoid Diversity Crises." Diversity executives with varying and elaborate titles from several public companies presented on these two panels.2 Each presenter delivered an adulatory portrayal of their companies' diversity efforts. Each presenter used the same words to describe aspirations of racial equity at their firm-"diversity," "access to opportunity," "inclusion."3 As I listened to their presentations, I was reminded of a book about a phenomenon called "doublespeak."4 The book's subtitle was, "How Government, Business, Advertisers, and Others Use Language to Deceive You."5 The author defined "doublespeak" in the following manner:[L]anguage that pretends to communicate but really doesn't. It is language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts responsibility . . . . It is language that conceals or prevents thought; rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it . . . . Basic to doublespeak is incongruity, the incongruity between what is said or left unsaid, and what really is.6In the three hours and fifteen minutes I spent listening to the presenters on both panels, not one presenter uttered the word "discrimination." None of the panelists spoke of antidiscrimination law and their companies' efforts to monitor compliance with such law. Discrimination, "the D-word," I presumed, was an epithet to be avoided at all costs at gatherings such as these. Implicit in their silence about discrimination and racism was the conclusion that these problems had been resolved within their companies, if they had ever existed at all. Their silence implied that the only remaining issues for corporate managers to address were inclusion of people of color in the wealth generated by public companies, access to equal opportunity, and diversity. This was diversity doublespeak.I left both panels with unanswered questions. Did the panelists represent the exceptional companies? Have the companies at which the panelists work resolved discrimination problems to the extent that they no longer require discussion? How many people of color were senior managers at their companies? Were people of color, particularly African Americans, promoted at the same rate as whites? Did African Americans earn the same pay as their white counterparts?Because some of the panels ran concurrently, I could not attend everything. I searched the conference program for a panel, any panel, about the problem of continuing racism and discrimination within public companies. I found only discussions about "inclusion," "access," and "diversity." Yet, to me at least, it seemed clear that race discrimination continues to be a problem for corporate employees, communities, consumers, and suppliers of color. How else can one explain the economic gap between whites and African Americans? In 2002 the average black household income was 64.9% of white household income,7 and black men earned 73.9% of what white men earned.8 "Since the stock market bubble burst in March, 2000, black unemployment has soared to nearly 11%, double that of whites. And it's not just less skilled blacks who get hurt. In 2002, the number of employed black managers and professionals fell . …