By Arin N. Reeves, J.D., Ph.D.
The Athens Group
Mark Twain once said: "When angry, count to four; when very angry, swear."
When it comes to people clouding, conflating and flat-out confusing affirmative action with diversity, I have often counted to four (and beyond), but when Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) recently penned an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal (July 22, 2010) titled "Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege," I had to stop counting and start swearing.
Webb asserts: "Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans." Therefore, he argues, "[b]eyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end."
He also suggests that "[n]ondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities."
Nondiscrimination. Affirmative action. Diversity. Inclusiveness. Webb uses these different words to make the same point, as if the terms were simple substitutions for each other. In spite of the extensive research and scholarship on this topic, the reality that each of these words denote very different things is a reality that is often conveniently ignored.
I have counted and counted, but it's time to start swearing. Nondiscrimination is not affirmative action, is not diversity, is not inclusion.
Nondiscrimination is our legal solution to correct the history of legislated discrimination that existed in many forms until the 1960s. We have to tell people not to discriminate because we told them it was okay - sometimes even required - to discriminate for the majority of this country's history. Once we realized that just telling people to no longer discriminate was not going to work because we had created so many lies (eugenics, etc.) to justify discrimination, Lyndon Johnson designed "affirmative action" programs to deal with the "badges of slavery" such as structural inequities, social biases and racial stereotypes.
Affirmative action was deemed to be one way to get to diversity, a social goal of appropriate demographic representation. Equating affirmative action to diversity is like equating crash diets to sustaining a healthy weight. We can agree that maintaining a healthy weight is a good thing, but we can disagree about whether crash diets are the best way to get there.
You can agree with diversity as an end goal even if you disagree with affirmative action as the tactic by which you get there. You can also disagree that diversity should be an end goal, but that is still different from disagreeing with affirmative action as a tactic.
Inclusiveness can be seen as general good health, with a healthy weight range as being a key prerequisite.
You don't have to be in your healthy weight range to be healthy, but you are risking your overall health if you are way below or way above your healthy weight. By the same token, diversity is not a prerequisite for inclusiveness, but inclusiveness without diversity may not be sustainable.
Nondiscrimination is a legislative corrective mechanism. Diversity is a demographic construct. Affirmative action was created as a tactic to overcome the social residue from legislated discrimination so that we can move toward diversity. Inclusion refers to individual and organization skill sets that allow us to recognize, understand and respect perspectives other than our own.
Now, back to Webb. "I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to American's economic system and to our workforce, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white."
I believe that Webb has dedicated his political career to fairness, but, with all due respect, it is not "diversity programs" that have "expanded so far beyond their original purpose." His incorrect expansion of nondiscrimination, affirmative action, diversity and inclusion to mean things that they were never meant to mean is an example of how political discourse clouds our dialogue. Even his use of "white privilege" leads to more confusion than clarity because he never explains why the concept of white privilege is now a myth.
Nor does he explain the privilege he experiences when he walks into the U.S. Senate on any given day and 95 percent of his fellow senators are white - even though whites don't make up anywhere near 95 percent of our nation. Perhaps the privilege of privilege is the ability to ignore the privilege.
His privilege aside, Webb may, in fact, be surprised to discover that many people who are strong advocates for diversity and inclusion (like me) may not be fully in favor of traditional affirmative action programs in their current format. I actually agree with his closing statement that "[f]airness will happen," but I don't think that fairness can happen when we unhinge words from their true meanings simply to justify our opinions.