03CH_Kahn_Diversity.pdf

3 Dimensions of the Term Diversity

Blend Images–Jon Feingersh/Brand X Pictures/Getty Images

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

• Analyze different concepts of the term diversity with regard to privilege, disadvantages, and prejudice, and
as a moral imperative.

• Expand on diversity’s positive and negative effects on a nation’s economy and the ways in which learning
about human diversity may be considered an economic imperative.

• Argue a position for or against diversity initiatives.

• Explain the historical evolution of diversity as a social and political concept.

• Distinguish between sex and gender and analyze the value of these terms in explaining diversity.

• Differentiate the terms gender expression, gender identity, and sexual orientation from one another and
evaluate their usefulness in understanding how sex and gender influence culture.

• Explain why race is a socially constructed category and how it differs from ethnicity.

• Argue the value, or lack of value, of generational cohorts in explaining cultural diversity.

• Explain the various societal structures that have been identified by scholars based on cultural norms
regarding the roles and duties of men and women.

kah81790_03_c03_065-100.indd 65 4/2/15 1:46 PM

Section 3.1 A Conceptual and Theoretical Framework for Diversity

Introduction
In previous chapters we defined who we are by exploring the interrelated influences of genetic
inheritance, the external environment, culture, and social construction. We also examined the
impact of culture and subcultures on our attitudes, values, behaviors, and interactions with
others. As unique individuals with unique backgrounds, we must coexist in a society with
others who have characteristics and perspectives that can be widely divergent from our own.

We initially defined the term diversity in this text as the variety of ways in which humans are
similar and different—the amalgamation of factors that makes each of us who we are. Numer-
ous metaphors have been used to describe diversity. At one point in the United States, it was
common to use the melting pot metaphor to represent an idealized society in which people of
diverse backgrounds and characteristics could become one by harmoniously blending their
differences. That ideal has yet to be achieved in the United States; diversity continues to be a
major social and political issue here as well as in most societies around the world.

What do we mean by diversity? What constitutes a diverse society, and how does diversity
impact our interpersonal and group relationships and cultural uniqueness? We will explore
these questions in this chapter.

3.1 A Conceptual and Theoretical Framework for Diversity
Since the 19th century, the concept of diversity as the description of physical and cultural
variation has been an important basis upon which biologists, anthropologists, and medical
researchers have explored human similarities and differences. However, diversity as a social
and political concept—based on individuals’ identification with various groups or differing
demographic characteristics (statistics like age, race, religion, or ethnicity)—is relatively
new.

While the term diversity was not in widespread use until the 1970s and 1980s, issues of racial
diversity and inequality were in the American consciousness well before then, thanks in part
to the speeches and actions of Madam C. J. Walker, Susan B. Anthony, César Chávez, Abraham
Lincoln, Malcolm X, and of course, Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement. In
his speeches, King deplored the emphasis on racial differences and “separate but equal” facili-
ties for Blacks and Whites in many public places at that time.

King often used the phrase “a single garment of destiny” to describe his view of the connec-
tions that unify Americans. For example, in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963, he
wrote: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable
network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects
all indirectly” (King, 1963, para. 4).

kah81790_03_c03_065-100.indd 66 4/2/15 1:46 PM

Section 3.1 A Conceptual and Theoretical Framework for Diversity

King’s view, however, is antithetical to
today’s concept of diversity, because
he emphasized our connectedness
and underlying unity rather than our
differences. In contrast, the contem-
porary application of the term diver-
sity calls attention to the fact that
Americans have an acknowledged,
and sometimes celebrated, range of
different characteristics such as race,
ethnicity, or gender. To reconcile the
contemporary concept with the seem-
ingly contradictory viewpoint in King’s
letter, and to engender recognition
and respect for differences, some have
interpreted King’s message to empha-
size the separateness of the threads
rather than the interweaving of the
entire garment (Wood, 2003).

The Practice of Inclusion

One of the concepts at the forefront of contemporary diversity studies is that of inclusion.
Although the term is controversial among scholars, it has nevertheless been embraced by
many practitioners to mean creating environments that support a wide variety of people and
are inclusive of all their diverse backgrounds. Throughout the literature of the 1990s, this
practice was referred to as diversity management. Diversity management and inclusion go
deeper than merely adding individuals with diverse characteristics to a group, organization,
or society; rather, the group, organization, or society must integrate, fully connect, engage,
and utilize people of all types.

The term inclusion is controversial because its meaning can be misunderstood. While the
focus of inclusion is to develop systems in which people feel appreciated, the colloquial mean-
ing of the word suggests to some that that people should be included in ways that are con-
trary to the hierarchical management system within which many organizations, groups, com-
munities, and institutions in the United States and abroad function. Leaders who choose to
embrace the term need to be prepared to respond to its colloquial meaning.

Leadership and organization development consultant Bernardo Ferdman differentiates
between diversity and inclusion by stating that, in most countries around the world, diversity
is often a fact of life today. Inclusion, on the other hand, is what we do with diversity when
we value and appreciate people because of their differences, not in spite of them (Ferdman,
2013).

Everett Collection/SuperStock

Martin Luther King Jr. often emphasized the many
similarities, rather than the differences, that unified
Americans.

kah81790_03_c03_065-100.indd 67 4/2/15 1:46 PM

Section 3.1 A Conceptual and Theoretical Framework for Diversity

Diversity as Consideration for Disadvantages

Anthropological scholar Peter Wood (2003) argues that learning about diversity is more than
simply focusing on the social fabric’s separate threads and removing barriers among people.
In Wood’s view:

The ideal of diversity is that once individuals of diverse backgrounds are
brought together, a transformation will take place in people’s attitudes—pri-
marily within the members of the formerly exclusive group, who will discover
the richness of the newcomers’ cultural backgrounds. Diversity will breed tol-
erance and respect, and because it increases the pool of skills, will enhance the
effectiveness of work groups and contribute to economic prosperity. (p. 12)

This ideal has rarely been realized. Conflict, rather than cooperation, has more often charac-
terized the experience of diverse people living together. Around the world, prolonged conflict
among diverse people who live in close proximity to one another—such as the Shiites, Sunnis,
and Kurds in Iraq—testify to this fact.

Moreover, diversity has become a social and political doctrine in places where some groups
have historically been separated from or favored over others. This doctrine asserts that some
groups deserve consideration or compensation for the real or perceived ways in which their
predecessors or current members were disadvantaged in the past, ways that may even con-
tinue into the present. An example comes from the United States. In 1942—when the United
States was at war with Japan and other nations during World War II—the U.S. government
removed more than 100,000 Japanese immigrants and American citizens of Japanese descent
from their homes, confiscated their businesses and personal property, and incarcerated them
in internment camps. After the war this group spent several decades seeking reparations
for the injustice, which was finally addressed in 1992 when the U.S. government provided
$20,000 to each internee or a surviving heir (Robinson, 2001).

This view was also the impetus for launching equal employment opportunity and affirmative
action programs in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s. The objective of these programs
is to help eliminate the historic barriers that favored certain groups (such as White males) in
colleges and workplaces, or to establish hiring or promotional quotas to minimize or elimi-
nate disparities in minority group representation in management positions. These programs
will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

Diversity as a Moral Imperative

In philosophy, the term moral refers to individual and collective values and beliefs about what
constitutes good and bad, right and wrong. Moral values are often associated with religious
teachings, but many theorists believe that some moral values are universal. Scholar Barbara
Sundberg Baudot (2011) summarizes these as: “Do not lie. Do not cheat. Do not steal. Do not
murder. Do not do unto others what you would not like others to do to you. Treat all fellow
human beings with respect for their dignity” (pp. 11–12).

kah81790_03_c03_065-100.indd 68 4/2/15 1:46 PM

Section 3.1 A Conceptual and Theoretical Framework for Diversity

Many theorists believe this last value constitutes a moral imperative for societies: to ensure
that all their members are treated fairly and equally. Doing so means recognizing and respect-
ing diversity, they say, and is simply the morally right course of action (Carnavale & Stone,
1994).

But what does it mean to treat people fairly and equally? Philosopher John Locke, whose work
in the late 1600s greatly influenced the framers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and
Constitution, suggested that rule of law and individual freedom are the defining character-
istics of a sound, free, and prosperous society. Locke believed that the rule of law involved
equally applying a single, fair standard to all people, and that individual freedom comes
directly from a creator. From these ideas, he concluded that all individuals have equal moral
rights, including life, liberty, and property, that cannot be taken away without the individual’s
consent.

In ancient Greece Plato said essentially the same thing—that fair rules must be applied equally
to all people. However, Plato also insisted that it is not enough to simply apply such rules; the
results must be fair, too. Locke and other scholars diverged from Plato on this point. They
argued that the rule of law produces the conditions for freedom, but to require that results
also be equal is actually inconsistent with that freedom.

It is this last point on which many people disagree today when they discuss diversity issues.
Those who believe that the rules and their results must be equal argue that the law should be
based on social reality and reason, as interpreted by legal authorities. It should be interpreted
over time, based on changing circumstances and on what would be good for the largest num-
ber of people in the society.

This view is often expressed through the term social justice, which refers to the creation of
social and political institutions that will ensure fair treatment and equal distribution of costs
and benefits to all people in a society. However, what constitutes “fair and equal” is debat-
able, and disagreements continually arise about which societal costs and benefits should be
equally distributed.

The term social justice was embraced by influential 19th-century English philosopher John
Stuart Mill in his book Utilitarianism. In Mill’s view, the ethical course of action is the one that
maximizes utility, which is defined as that which increases happiness and reduces suffering
for the greatest number of people. Mill believed that societies can be virtuous in the same way
as individuals, and he used his writings on this topic to influence social policy (Novak, 2000).

Contemporary social justice advocates often argue that in many societies, including the United
States, neither the rules nor the results are fair. Historical discrimination and tradition, along
with existing social institutions and power structures, make society inherently unfair. They
assert that fair treatment and equal distribution of society’s benefits are moral rights or enti-
tlements and, in keeping with Mill’s view, often think it is the government’s responsibility to
provide such benefits.

Ben O’Neill (2011) of the University of New South Wales disagrees with this assertion. In
his view, the argument for social justice is itself a flawed view of rights. A right, he asserts, is
a term that designates an actual moral principle that is validated by moral philosophy; it is
not a mere subjective construct. A person has a right to something—as opposed to merely a

kah81790_03_c03_065-100.indd 69 4/2/15 1:46 PM

Section 3.2 Diversity’s Impact on Social and Political Policies in the United States

desire for something—if he or she has an actual moral prerogative to have that thing and is
prevented from having it. For example, we might say that a property owner has a moral right
to control his or her own property, and it is morally wrong for others to interfere with this
control.

O’Neill (2011) argues that rights refer to what is morally right—not a “shopping list” (para.
8) of things you desire or that the government or someone else should give to you or force
others to give to you. This type of right, says O’Neill, is akin to thievery, in which someone sees
something they want and uses that desire to justify taking it from others.

Other critics of social justice theory agree with Locke that the results of fair rules do not nec-
essarily have to be equal. One researcher used the game of baseball to illustrate this point. If
the rules are fair and do not favor one side over the other; if they are agreed upon beforehand
and equally enforced; then the result is fair, even if the result is a score of 20–0 (Devine, 2014).

3.2 Diversity’s Impact on Social and Political Policies
in the United States
Early inquiries into diversity issues began when women entered the workforce in the 1940s
to fill in for the vast numbers of men who left their jobs to fight in World War II. Although
some women worked outside the home prior to that point, the extreme shortage of workers
led large numbers of women to enter the workforce for the first time. Minorities were also
trained and hired to perform jobs that had previously been done primarily by White men.
These two demographic shifts created significant management issues. For example, in 1942
the National War Labor Board attempted to erase some of the long-standing pay inequalities
for women and minorities by adopting a policy of equal pay for comparable work (although
this policy was seldom enforced) (“Little Steel,” 2006).

While the 1960s civil rights movement may have made Americans more aware of racial issues,
the term diversity began to be used extensively in contemporary vernacular and became a true
social and political issue following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Regents of
the University of California v. Bakke (1978). In this case, which questioned the constitutional-
ity of the university’s affirmative action policy, Supreme Court Justice Lewis Franklin Powell
Jr. stated that the goal of “attaining a diverse student body” was a “constitutionally permis-
sible” (as cited in Wood, 2003, p. 8) reason to consider racial preferences in admission to a
medical school. In other words, the goal of achieving diversity overrode the 14th Amend-
ment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Since that ruling, the concept of diversity has been controversial. As previously discussed,
some theorists argue that recognizing and including diverse groups in mainstream society is
a social good and should guide our thinking about who we are as a people and how we might
reconcile our differences. Others see diversity as the antithesis of inclusion and argue that
focusing on individual differences creates chaos and poor public policy and is an impediment
to unity and cooperation. Additionally, others argue that since the Regents decision in 1978,
the history of diversity has been marred by “opportunism, idealism, miscalculation, shrewd
maneuver, deception, self-deception, truth-telling and deceit” (Wood, 2003, p. 8).

kah81790_03_c03_065-100.indd 70 4/2/15 1:46 PM

Section 3.2 Diversity’s Impact on Social and Political Policies in the United States

From the late 1950s through the 1980s, researchers such as psychologists Gordon Allport
(1958), Abraham Maslow (1971), Carl Rogers (1977), economist Thomas Sowell (1981), and
others focused on the complexity of human differences, the impact these have on society, and
the subject of prejudice. During the same time, some government agencies, organizations,
and businesses also began to take note of shifting demographics in the workplace; however,
the majority did not pay attention to this shift until 1987, when the Hudson Institute pub-
lished a report titled Workforce 2000, which correctly predicted many of the workplace demo-
graphic changes that would occur by the end of the century. The report was another factor
that brought diversity into the national consciousness (Johnston & Packer, 1987).

In the 1950s, Asians, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Blacks together represented only
7.6% of the U.S. population. However, by 2000 the total minority population had doubled to
16%. As of December 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau reported the total minority population had
reached 37% and is expected to make up 57% of the U.S. population in 2060 (U.S. Department
of Commerce, 2012).

The Hudson Institute’s report is often cited as the first to use the term diversity in a business
setting. The findings resulted in an escalation of articles on the topic published in journals
and magazines; meanwhile, American CEOs, trainers, and human resources directors began
to understand that new entrants to the workforce would be more ethnically diverse than in
the past and would significantly alter the work environment. Rather than meaning difference,
variation, or dissimilarity, the term diversity began to be used to refer to processes designed
to address the specific concerns of this growing demographic mix.

The Effects of Diversity on a Nation’s Economy

What is the effect of immigration and increased diversity on a society’s economy? Globally,
nations are becoming more diverse, so this question is under study by economists throughout
the world.

Diversity as an economic benefit was described by well-known diversity consultant Taylor
Cox Jr. in his 2001 book, Creating the Multicultural Organization. Cox stated:

Well-managed diversity can add value to an organization by (1) improving
problem solving, (2) increasing creativity and innovation, (3) increasing orga-
nizational flexibility, (4) improving the quality of personnel through better
recruitment and retention, and (5) improving marketing strategies, especially
for organizations that sell products or services to end users. (p. 6)

The nonprofit Denver Foundation also suggests that corporations have realized the buying
power of growing communities of color. They have also recognized that creating more inclu-
sive and diverse workforces and work environments has a business value. A more diverse
workforce, it is suggested, ensures that companies develop desirable and culturally appropri-
ate products and leads to greater job satisfaction and lower turnover rates among workers.
Such ideas encourage the moral imperative of diversity to shift to a strategic and economic
one (as cited in Katherine Pease & Associates, 2003).

kah81790_03_c03_065-100.indd 71 4/2/15 1:46 PM

Section 3.2 Diversity’s Impact on Social and Political Policies in the United States

However, a comprehensive paper on the socioeconomic impact of cultural diversity prepared
by scholars at VU University Amsterdam (Dutch: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) reviewed
numerous studies on the topic and came to more mixed conclusions. The report found that
diversity has both positive and negative economic effects and reported on studies that showed
neutral effects and some that yielded contradictory empirical results (Baycan & Nijkamp,
2012).

On the positive side, research has uncovered many economic benefits of diversity, including
job creation, increases in customers and sales revenues, greater market share, and higher
relative profits for many companies. Studies have also shown that diversity stimulates cre-
ativity, innovation, productivity, and performance (Baycan & Nijkamp, 2012).

Additionally, immigration and multicultural diversity tend to have economic advantages for
both the sending and receiving countries. For example, immigration from Central and South
America to the United States and Canada has been shown not only to have some positive
effects on the U.S. economy, but immigrants often send money, or remittances, back to their
homelands, which stimulates the economy there as well. Immigrants are also likely to transfer
technology and new ideas to their home nations, which can benefit less developed countries.

The impact of immigration on welfare in the receiving and sending countries is difficult to
measure, however, because welfare is heavily dependent on the flexibility of labor markets
to absorb immigrant workers. In general, though, the impact of immigration on wages and
employment in the receiving nation is neutral.

On the other hand, diversity issues have also been shown to generate potential costs. They
may lead to racism and prejudices, resulting in open clashes, and can have detrimental effects
on economic health in Western societies. For example, as of October 17, 2014, costs for the
massive law enforcement presence to quell protests, rioting, and looting in Ferguson, Mis-
souri, that erupted after teenager Michael Brown was killed by a police officer on August 9,
2014, totaled $5.7 million. These costs include only the expenses for the state of Missouri
and St. Louis County. They do not include the cost to the city of Ferguson and to private busi-
ness owners whose stores were looted and/or damaged during the crisis. Public officials have
commented that these unexpected costs will have an impact on future city, county, and state
budgets, and they have begun to study what public services may have to be reduced to cover
these costs (Hettiger, 2014).

When we examine the impact of diversity on a nation’s economy, we must recognize that age,
ethnicity, and income appear to be important variables among individuals in this regard. Low
income and unemployment are associated with the perception of negative implications of
diversity. Additionally, poverty, crime, and diversity have been found to be interrelated in the
United States, which clouds the specific effects of diversity alone. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 summa-
rize the findings of both positive and negative effects discussed in the VU University Amster-
dam report (Baycan & Nijkamp, 2012).

kah81790_03_c03_065-100.indd 72 4/2/15 1:46 PM

Section 3.2 Diversity’s Impact on Social and Political Policies in the United States

Table 3.1: Positive economic effects of cultural diversity

Jacobs (1961) • Diversity is the key factor for a city’s success: The
variety of commercial activities, cultural occa-
sions, inhabitants, visitors, tastes, abilities, needs,
and even obsessions constitute the engine of urban
development.

Sassen (1994) • A key characteristic of “global cities” is the cultural
diversity of their population.

O’Reilly, Williams, & Barsade (1998); Lazear
(1999); Ottaviano & Peri (2006a, 2006b)

• Diversity potentially increases the variety of goods,
services, and skills available for consumption, produc-
tion, and innovation.

Quigley (1998); Glaeser, Kolko, & Saiz (2001) • Diversity of available goods and services is an attrac-
tive feature of cities.

Florida (2002); Gertler, Florida, Gates, &
Vinodrai (2002)

• Diversity and difference in people’s working and liv-
ing environments stimulate innovation and economic
growth.

• Diversity helps attract knowledgeable workers, which
increases cities’ creative capital and long-term pros-
pects for knowledge-based growth.

GEM (2004); OECD (2006) • Migration and diversity contribute to job creation and
economic growth in many countries.

• Net job creation was more than 5 million in Spain,
2.5 million in France, 2.1 million in Italy, 1.9 million in
the United Kingdom, and 1.3 million in the Netherlands.

• In the United States net job creation from 1999 to 2004
was more than 15.5 million jobs, of which 9 million
were occupied by persons born abroad.

• Immigrants contributed to and benefited from more
than 30% of net job creation in the United Kingdom,
whereas the percentage was 20% in Spain, the Nether-
lands, Portugal, Italy, and Sweden.

Alesina & La Ferrara (2005) • Diversity has a negative effect on population growth in
initially poor counties and a less negative (or positive)
effect in initially richer counties.

Boeri & Brücker (2005) • International migration can significantly increase
income per capita in Europe; migration of 3% of the
eastern population to the west could increase total
European Union gross domestic product by up to 0.5%.

Ottaviano & Peri (2006a, 2006b ) • On average, U.S.-born citizens are more productive in a
culturally diversified environment.

• The effects of immigration on the average wages of the
native population are positive and rather large; effects
are particularly strong for the most educated (college
graduates) and negative for the least educated (high
school drop-outs).

• Richer diversity is indeed associated with higher wages
and productivity of the native population.

Manacorda, Manning, & Wadsworth (2007) • Diversity is positively correlated with productivity in
the United Kingdom.

kah81790_03_c03_065-100.indd 73 4/2/15 1:46 PM

Section 3.2 Diversity’s Impact on Social and Political Policies in the United States

D’Amuri, Ottaviano, & Peri (2008) • Diversity is positively correlated with productivity in
Germany.

Bellini, Ottaviano, Pinelli, & Prarolo (2008) • Diversity is positively correlated with productivity
across European Union countries.

Herring (2009) • Diversity is linked to positive outcomes in business
organizations and associated with increased sales
revenues, more customers, greater market share,
and greater relative profits in many companies in the
United States.

Source: Baycan, T., Nijkamp, P. (2012). “A Socio-economic Impact Analysis of Urban Cultural Diversity: Pathways and Horizons”, in
Peter Nijkamp, Jacques Poot and Mediha Sahin (eds.), Migration Impact Assessment: New Horizons, Chapter 5, Cheltenham, UK
and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd, pp 186–187 and p 188. http://www.elgaronline.com.

Table 3.2: Negative economic effects of cultural diversity

Borjas (1995, 2003)
Borjas (1994, 2003)

• A negative impact of immigrants on the wages of natives.

Borjas, Freeman, & Katz
(1997)

• A negative impact of immigrants on the relative wages of less educated
workers.

Easterly & Levine (1997) • Richer diversity is associated with slower economic growth.

Collier (2001) • Diversity has negative effects on productivity and growth in nondemo-
cratic regimes.

Angrist & Kugler (2003) • Negative impact of migration on employment levels in the European Union.

Alesina & La Ferrara
(2005)

• Increases in ethnic diversity are associated with lower growth rates.
• Going from perfect homogeneity to complete heterogeneity would reduce

a country’s yearly growth performance by 2%.
• Diversity has a more negative effect at lower levels of income.
• Diversity has a negative effect on population growth in initially poor coun-

ties, and a less negative (or positive) effect in initially richer counties.

Source: Baycan, T., Nijkamp, P. (2012). “A Socio-economic Impact Analysis of Urban Cultural Diversity: …