April/May 2003 Issue Number 46
 Is
a monthly electronic newsletter which links current events and issues
to the daily challenges faced by fire and emergency services managers.
Current topics in the areas of leadership development, workplace diversity,
change management, and conflict resolution will be discussed.
We
hope that you find the information here useful and provocative.
Let us know what you think! If you'd like to subscribe to the newsletter,
please enter your email address in the box below.
enter your email
address
10th
International Conference of Fire Service Women April 23-27, 2003.
Denver, CO. Contact info@wfsi.org
for more information.
The Future of Affirmative Action
Does affirmative action have a future? For the past decade, this system
of actively including historically under represented groups in the
workplace and schools has been under serious fire. States such as
California have passed laws basically making affirmative action in
its original form illegal. And this year, the Supreme Court is considering
what could be a landmark case for the future of affirmative action.
The
case currently before the court involves two complaints from students
at the University of Michigan; one at the undergraduate level and
one from the law school. In both cases, the white plaintiffs, who
were denied admission to the university, claim that they were discriminated
against due to the preference points for admission that are given
by the university to members of minority groups.
The
University of Michigan does give preference points for admission based
on race, as well as a number of other factors such as athletic achievement
and family alumni status. The case before the Supreme Court claims
that preference points based on race are illegal and should not be
allowed under any circumstances. An interesting aspect of this
case is who is lining up on each side. A number of individuals and
groups, including President Bush, have written in support of the students
who filed the suit; in other words, against the practice of affirmative
action at the university. But many others have supported the university's
policies as they stand. Overall, among a record number of briefs filed
regarding the case (102), 78 support affirmative action, 19 oppose
it, and five take a neutral position.
Beyond
the sheer numbers are some notable aspects of who has written in support
of the standing policies of the University of Michigan. Many university
officials from around the country have written to say that they value
the diverse student body that affirmative action creates. In addition,
the CEO's of 65 Fortune 500 companies have also asked that affirmative
action be retained. Perhaps most notably, 21 retired generals and
admirals, including three former military academy superintendents,
signed a brief urging the justices to leave the door open to admissions
policies that consider race as a factor.
Corporations
such as Microsoft, Coca-Cola and General Electric wrote that racial
and ethnic diversity in colleges and universities is vital to their
companies' ability to maintain a diverse workforce and ultimately
to their continued success in the world marketplace. The brief written
by military personnel, which included Admiral William Crowe, chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan, and General Norman
Schwarzkopf, went even further. Their brief recalled racial polarization
in the military during the Vietnam War, when many African-Americans
served among the enlisted but few were officers. The brief stated
that the situation became so bad that some leaders feared that the
military was "on the verge of self-destruction." They stated
that race-based recruitment programs increased the percentage of minority
officers and greatly improved race relations.
Affirmative
action presents a quandary to many people. On the one hand, most people
agree that schools and workplaces that represent the diversity of
society are a good thing. However, many people also feel uncomfortable
with the means that have been used to reach the goal of inclusion.
What is the future of affirmative action in the United States? The
Supreme Court will make their decision later this year.
Sources:
The New York Times, March 30, 2003 and April 1, 2003
Reuters, February 17, 2003
New Jersey recently became the first state to make racial profiling
by public officials a crime. The new law is designed to prevent public
intimidation, particularly in the forms of arrest and police searches,
against individuals due to race, gender, ethnicity, physical handicaps,
religion or sexual orientation. It does not prohibit police from using
race or ethnicity alongside other characteristics as a means of identifying
or apprehending suspects. Violation of the law is punishable by up
to five years imprisonment and a $15,000 fine.
Source: Reuters, March 14, 2003
The
Odds of Winning
Many
people believe that when people file sexual harassment lawsuits, they
are practically guaranteed to win. This is far from the truth. In
fact, the odds of winning vary considerably depending on where the
suit is filed. The best odds for plaintiffs are in the Second Circuit,
which includes New York, Vermont and Connecticut. There, plaintiffs
prevail nearly 80% of the time. In contrast, the odds of winning such
a case in the Fourth Circuit, which includes the states of Virginia,
West Virginia, Maryland, North and South Carolina, are only 21%. Nationally,
the average of wins for those filing complaints is only 39%. In other
words, on average, when people file sexual harassment claims, the
odds are nearly 2 to 1 against them from the start.
These
statistics provide one more reason why legal recourse should be a
last resort to workplace problem solving. In the long run, lawsuits
tend to be losing propositions for everyone. Lawsuits are expensive,
and not just financially. They also consume time, resources, and attention.
They draw negative attention to an organization, as well as polarizing
the workplace internally. Lawsuits create an atmosphere of fear, distrust,
and lack of faith in alternative methods of resolving conflicts.
Which
is not to say that lawsuits should never happen. Big problems require
big solutions, and some necessary social changes have happened as
a result of the actions of the legal system. But even the positive
results of litigation come at a high price.
In the
context of the workplace, there are always opportunities to solve
problems before they get to the point where people are hiring lawyers
and going to court. People need to learn skills to resolve problems
among themselves if possible and supervisors need to understand their
roles in making sure problems are solved rather than avoided (or even
enabled by them). Outside resources such as formal mediation should
be recognized and accessed as needed.
But most
importantly, leaders need to lead. They need to lead by their own
example and by their actions and words that clearly do not tolerate
inappropriate behavior in the workplace. When clear expectations are
established, it is not that difficult to identify and correct aberrant
behavior. Leadership in this area takes skill and commitment to a
workplace that is truly inclusive. When such leadership exists, the
odds of winning a lawsuit don't matter, because all potential harassment
will be recognized and remedied long before it gets to that point.
Source:
The New York Times Magazine, March 9, 2003
|
