Employment Ethics: Religion, Race, and Workplace Gray Areas

Introduction

It is generally agreed that for one to be a true professional, one must separate personal ethics from professional ethics. This is sometimes necessary because the two sets of ethics will occasionally conflict. However, the ethical dynamic in employment situations is greatly complicated by factors that turn what would normally be clear-cut issues into shades of gray. Things that can produce these shades of gray include religion, disagreements with ethical standards posed by a government body or employer, and similar considerations. While some may assert that the rules of the employment and human resources field are unambiguous and beyond question, that is simply not always the case, and some degree of skepticism about a given matter may actually be justified.

Religion and Employment Ethics

One major topic that arises in employment ethics is religion. While privately held businesses are largely able to infuse religion into their operations at will — with some constraints — the same is not true of public organizations and agencies. The author of this paper served in the United States Navy and has observed a shift away from a "God and Country" orientation toward a more inclusive approach, reflected in the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and a reduced religious presence in some forums (HRC, 2015). Another prominent example is the county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds even after the Supreme Court ruled that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. The situation was complicated by the clerk's invocation of the First Amendment's free exercise clause, though her prospects of prevailing in any legal challenge were considered slim (Blinder, 2015). Similar disputes have arisen with businesses such as bakeries that refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

In short, whether in a private business or a public institution, employees have the right to hold their own convictions and religious practices. However, those convictions cannot govern who is hired, who is fired, or who is served as a customer. When it comes to ethical standards, the wrong actors in these cases are fairly clear, even if some people disagree based on personal viewpoints. Imposing one's own beliefs on broader society is not ethical, and it is often illegal (ACLU, 2015).

Affirmative Action and Racial Equity

The author referenced shades of gray earlier, and they certainly exist. One clear example is affirmative action. Affirmative action for Black Americans in employment and higher education exists for a fairly straightforward reason: for centuries, Black people were subjugated, enslaved, and treated as second-class citizens. The legacy of slavery in the Americas and the Caribbean dates back at least to Columbus in the late 1400s. Even so, many people find something troubling about extending favor based on race, since it can appear to disadvantage white applicants who are often non-racist and had no personal role in the discrimination that made affirmative action a policy. Some argue that such measures are necessary to "level the playing field." While that reasoning has merit and may represent the lesser of two evils, others contend that the real underlying issue lies in the conditions of inner cities — poverty, inadequate education, and crime — and that addressing those root causes is both harder and more lasting. Prior efforts such as wealth transfers and social programs have not reliably moved the needle on the poverty and other negative indicators that disproportionately affect Black Americans.

The author holds that the best-qualified person should receive a job regardless of race, gender, or religion. Yet even pursuing that standard can invite scrutiny from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other regulatory bodies when people of color and women are hired at rates that do not reflect the surrounding population. There are no easy answers, but to suggest that affirmative action is the singular and best solution is difficult for many to accept — even as it remains the law of the land. The central question is whether it is more ethical to remedy past social and legal wrongs inflicted on African Americans, or to pursue immediate, universal equality as the only goal (SCU, 2015).

Conclusion

As this discussion demonstrates, while many concepts in the employment and human resources field are well-established and relatively stable, others remain malleable and subject to genuine disagreement. While it is difficult to argue against the principle that personal ethics should be kept separate from professional ethics when the two conflict, the specific form and content of professional ethical standards can vary considerably depending on context, values, and the competing interests at stake.