Black Women in Oil and Gas: Do Set-Aside Programs Work?

Introduction

When you spend your whole life being marginalized and excluded, you can develop what is commonly called a chip on your shoulder — resentment, frustration. I will not say that this has happened to me, but neither will I say that it has not. Taking a hard look at oneself is as difficult and challenging as it is to look honestly at others — without prejudice, bias, or judgment. As part of the contemporary orientation toward social justice, so-called social policymaking advocates like to think they are taking the side of the marginalized, the forgotten, the repressed and oppressed minorities. Individuals like myself who have tried to find equality discover that principles and ideals are fine to discuss, but in the real world, human beings act on motives separate and distinct from the ideals we all presumably share.

I seek to represent the so-called "beneficiaries" of the public policies that pertain to diversity and inclusion. Inclusion and set-aside initiatives are not independent of, or different from, affirmative action. Within the construction and extraction sectors, for instance, such programs form part of positive action strategies. This paper aims to explore the topic of inclusion and set-aside initiatives for Black women, with a goal of gauging how successful they have been in achieving their purpose. To that end, the paper provides background, examines the rationale behind inclusion and set-aside initiatives, and assesses their advantages and drawbacks before arriving at a conclusion.

Personal Background and the Oil and Gas Industry

I am not sure exactly why, but I always wanted to be different — to make an impact. When I immigrated to the United States six years ago, I wanted to build a career that Black women do not normally enter. I did not want to cook, cater, clean, or care for children — in short, I did not want to participate in those activities that my ancestors had performed as enslaved people in the United States and elsewhere. I set about researching which field was essentially "no-Black-woman-land," and I found it: the oil and gas industry. I knew there would be obstacles, but I also knew that programs had been developed to help minorities, women, the disadvantaged, and small business enterprises, creating opportunities for those not fortunate enough to be part of the existing power structure.

What I soon found, however, was that these so-called programs for the disadvantaged were quite restrictive. For instance, a Black-owned company was required to own major assets such as refineries, and white women were classified as disadvantaged — because of something as natural as their sex. I found that Black women had to compete with Black men for the same contracts while white women did not have to compete against white men. In this industry, Black people are set against one another, as though there were some underlying desire to see them drive each other out — while the white woman is considered an equal even though she had access that Black women did not, whether through white capital or by fronting for a white husband.

What I encountered was a complex web of racialization, racism, white privilege, and what Miller (2004, p. 47) describes as "frontier masculinity and the romanticized cowboy hero." A Black woman in the oil and gas industry was like an alien walking on earth — tolerated as much as necessary, but never accepted on the same level as a white woman or a white man. This left me asking: What policies underpin these programs? Who are the policymakers that designed them, and why? Are these set-aside and inclusion programs really assisting?

I am reminded of the study by Williams, Kilanski, and Muller (2014), who examined why diversity programs initiated by U.S. oil and gas companies in the 1980s failed to address inequality within the sector. They interviewed women about their workplace experiences and found that, despite the objectives of these programs, they only reinforced gender and racial stereotypes and solidified male dominance. I read their findings with considerable attention, identifying with the women's experiences and affirming that their accounts were true — my own life was a clear illustration of that fact. What I could not help wondering was why something as arbitrary as the color of one's skin or one's sex could be treated as a determining variable in a person's ability to lead, to advance, or to succeed.

Rational Policymaking Theory and Social Policy

This paper presents a synthesis of knowledge on rational policymaking theory, grounded in relevant reading and my personal experience of discrimination within the oil and gas sector. It builds upon a common understanding of what rational policymaking is and draws on key references on the subject. The rational model seeks to understand all available alternatives, consider all consequences, and select the best options. It is concerned with the most effective way — in terms of promoting the realization of program objectives — to organize government and its processes so as to ensure an adequate flow of information, accurate and unbiased feedback, and the careful weighing of values (Clemons & McBeth, 2001, p. 43).

Each state prescribes its own interpretation and legitimacy for set-aside programs, and implementation may vary considerably. Some states have established these initiatives within their legislative frameworks, while others have instituted them as social initiatives aimed at guaranteeing equality. However, based on criticism from analysts regarding the legality of initiatives not grounded in law, such initiatives must be able to survive judicial review, since their basis lies in economic and social equality as enshrined in the constitutional Equal Protection Clause. The initiatives are formulated with the aim of increasing the participation of individual entrepreneurs and small companies in government contracts in economically advanced areas. On these grounds, one can argue that set-aside initiatives are indeed legitimate.

Conclusion

Pursuing the analysis of this model led me toward an exploration of other models as well. Personally, I found the strategic planning framework of the public sector most appealing. This framework strives to integrate rational and incremental public policy strategies, seeking to bring together routine operational requirements and long-range future planning. The issue is not perceived as entirely defined by the current political scenario, and risks are not overlooked. The framework adopts a dynamic outlook toward the future, employing a politically sensitive, uncompromising, and outward-looking focus.

It emphasizes decision-making — as opposed to the purely rational framework — while integrating rational evaluations with political and economic assessments — as opposed to the purely incremental framework. It tolerates debate and is therefore participatory in character. Lastly, it focuses on the fate of the central issue as a whole; secondary concerns are not allowed to dominate. For Black women navigating male-dominated industries like oil and gas, a framework that is dynamic, participatory, and politically aware is far more likely to produce genuine equity than one that remains confined to technical procedure.

References

Clemons, R., & McBeth, M. (2001). Public policy praxis: A case approach for understanding policy and analysis.

Miller, G. (2004). Frontier masculinity in the oil industry: The experience of women engineers. Gender, Work & Organization, 11(1), 47–73.

Williams, C., Kilanski, K., & Muller, C. (2014). Corporate diversity programs and gender inequality in the oil and gas industry. Work and Occupations, 41(4), 440–476.