This paper examines a 2010 Diversity Inc. article by Frankel that questions whether diversity initiatives inadvertently alienate white men by casting them as the problem. The paper argues that placing white males in an accusatory role undermines diversity's core purpose — the inclusion and respect of all races and genders. Drawing on workplace diversity literature, it contends that a merit-based hiring approach, rather than one focused on ethnicity and gender quotas, more effectively fosters genuine diversity. By broadening the definition of diversity to include cognitive style, personality, education, and background, organizations can build cohesive, prejudice-reduced workplaces without scapegoating any group.
The article (Frankel, 2010) addresses whether white men should be included in organizational diversity initiatives. It points out that diversity in the workplace begins with different perspectives within an organization, enabling the organization to grow. However, white males may sometimes feel threatened by diversity efforts, in part because diversity programs have often targeted white males, exhorting them to diversify their workplaces by introducing people of different backgrounds. This approach can make white males feel victimized, as though they alone are responsible for creating ethnically exclusive workplaces — a perspective that can simply backfire. A sample of interviewed companies therefore reported that they include white males in their diversity schemes so that accusations of a lack of diversity are not perceived as being leveled against them personally.
This article relates directly to diversity in the workplace because it addresses the feelings of the alleged oppressor — the white male — and examines whether diversity efforts backfire by targeting him as a wrongdoer and by excluding him from the initiative. Diversity, by definition, is a context in which all races and both genders are respected in any given situation. Placing the white male in an accusatory stance ipso facto places him outside the scope of diversity, thus creating potentially negative consequences.
It may be that, until now, the workplace environment was largely controlled and dominated by white males. However, in order for that dynamic to change, the solution requires inclusion rather than exclusion of the Caucasian male. It is in this sense that the article is beneficial: it makes us aware of a problem that can potentially undermine well-meaning efforts to diversify the workplace, causing more conflict than fraternity and tolerance.
By viewing diversity as an all-inclusive stance — one that encompasses white males as well — the article enables organizations to enhance their diversification efforts. It highlights that some white males may feel offended by allegations directed at them, and that subduing those allegations through inclusion can produce a more harmonious, cohesive workforce. This discussion relates most directly to the chapter covering the white male perspective and white males in the context of workplace diversity.
"Merit focus reduces racial scapegoating effectively"
The best type of workplaces are those that focus on merit rather than on the concentration of a diverse workforce. Concentration on merit will likely simultaneously introduce diversity in all its different forms. When organizations broaden their understanding of diversity and resist reducing it to race and gender alone, they create environments in which all employees — including white males — feel included, respected, and motivated to contribute.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.