Discrimination, Workplace

As a term, discrimination can be understood in different ways. Historically it has meant the process of observing differences and making distinctions in our choices. Whenever we are hiring an employee or choosing an employee for promotion, the process of selection involves a form of discrimination. In this respect all judgments are discriminatory.

In recent decades, however, discrimination has taken on a negative connotation. Current usage most likely refers to unjust discrimination that is the result of improper judgments. Here discrimination means choosing for or against a person based on their group or class, or some characteristic (attribute) related to their group, and not on individual merit. This subjective judgment is the basis for giving an individual unjustifiably positive or negative treatment.

Discrimination in the workplace is manifested in different forms. It can be seen in the selection, hiring and promotional practices of organizations. The most conspicuous forms of workplace discrimination are sexism, racism and ageism. It is naive to believe that Christians are not susceptible to workplace discrimination issues. Should a Christian manager not promote someone because of moral issues (perhaps the worker is racist, makes crude jokes, is a practicing homosexual), or should she or he consider only the employee’s work performance record? Should a Christian be promoted over a non-Christian? Or should a “nice” person be promoted ahead of a profane but more competent worker? Such questions suggest the breadth and complexity of choices involving discrimination. To answer any of these situations without being aware of the myriad variables that make up each set of circumstances would be both unfair and simplistic.

One business ethicist observes that at its core, workplace discrimination involves adverse decisions against employees based on their membership in a group that is viewed as inferior or seen as deserving of unequal treatment. This discrimination can be institutional or individual, intentional or unintentional (Shaw and Barry, p. 364).

Diversity and the Changing Workplace

Diversity and multiculturalism are two words often applied to today’s work environment. Here are some facts about the changing workplace in the United States:

• ❑ Women, people of color and immigrants account for more than 50 percent of the present work force.

• ❑ By the year 2000, 85 percent of the those entering the job market will be female, African-American, Asian-American, Latino or new immigrants.

• ❑ Two million “older” workers, between ages fifty and sixty-four, are ready, willing and able to work but are not being utilized.

• ❑ Encouraged by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, many of the forty-three million Americans with disabilities will seek equal opportunity in employment (Blank and Slipp, p. 3).

There is considerable agreement that an ethical organization operates on ground rules which encourage managers to communicate and treat the diversity and differences in their work force fairly. However, dealing with diversity in the workplace without practicing some discriminatory behavior has become a more complex task today than it was a decade or two ago.

A comprehensive 1980s study done by the Hudson Institute, Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century, made significant predictions that are worth examining. It projected that of the twenty-five million people who would join the American work force between 1987 and 2000, only 15 percent would be white males; almost 61 percent would be women; and 29 percent would be minorities (minority women were counted twice; cited by Garfield, pp. 8-9). For companies committed to a corporate culture that will include groups besides white males, this raises two dilemmas: first, how to ensure a diverse workforce without antagonizing either white males, whose support is critical for change, or women and minorities, who may resent efforts to win over white males; and second, how to correct historical discrimination without creating new forms of it (Galen and Palmer, pp. 50-52).

Sexism, Racism, Ageism and Other Forms of Workplace Discrimination

Sexism occurs when people are treated in a biased or prejudiced manner based on gender rather than on personal traits or abilities. Sexism can be blatant or subtle and is often complex. There are numerous accounts of how successful professional women today had to surmount serious sexist roadblocks to advance in their careers. It has only been in the last few decades that women have been able to make substantial inroads into such fields as medicine and law, for example.

Sexism can be subtle because people may interpret a particular behavior differently depending on whether it is exhibited by a man or a woman. Some may see a man as assertive but a woman as aggressive, a man as flexible but a woman as fickle, a woman as sensitive but a man as a wimp, or a woman as polite but a man as patronizing (Range, p. 791). Women frequently encounter a “glass ceiling” as they attempt the ascent to upper-management levels. Only about 3 percent of American women have gained high-level management positions. Furthermore, in the United States a woman earns only about 70-75 cents for every dollar earned by a man having the same job (Reder, pp. 23-25).

In the work arena, racism or racial prejudice occurs when there is an unfair or unequal valuation of persons on the basis of race. Racism assumes that hereditary biology determines the differences between groups, that cultural differences are predetermined and unchangeable, and that the identifying social and cultural features of the subordinate group are inferior (Thoms, p. 342).

African-Americans in particular have experienced discrimination at work. Their representation in management positions falls dramatically short of their overall representation in the work force. As of 1991, according to U.S. Labor Department statistics, fewer than 24 percent of African-American workers held managerial, professional or administrative jobs, compared to about 60 percent of whites (Reder, p. 31).

While diversity studies tend to focus on differences in gender, culture and ethnic background, the broadest definition of diversity will also encompass differences in age. As the American population ages, new concerns about staffing shortages, mandatory retirement and age discrimination are arising. Ageism is a much more subtle bias than racism and sexism; therefore it often goes unrecognized.

Sexism, racism and ageism are not the only areas where discrimination occurs in the workplace. Individuals may also suffer discrimination because of religious beliefs, sexual preference, disability status, educational background and even physical appearance. For example, some qualified individuals may be passed over for extremely attractive, less qualified individuals who broadcast the “ideal” organization image.

Group Characteristics Versus Stereotypes

Managers must take time to get to know and appreciate an individual’s unique qualities and not take the dangerous, ill-considered path of using stereotypes as a shortcut means for labeling people. Unfortunately, stereotyping happens too often—consciously or unconsciously—without any thought to its potentially adverse effects on others. The following are examples of common stereotypes:

• ❑ People with disabilities are unable to work regular hours.

• ❑ Women who are mothers are not committed to their jobs.

• ❑ White men are racist and sexist.

• ❑ Immigrants have no desire to learn English. (Blank and Slipp, p. 9)

Management must be aware of the difference between a group characteristic and a stereotype. For example, a legitimate characteristic of many people with disabilities—although not all—is that they need some accommodation to perform their jobs optimally. A stereotype is the belief that people with disabilities cannot work regular hours because it is too hard for them; such a stereotype may lead managers not to hire anyone with a disability.

Scripture and Discrimination

As Christians, when we make moral choices, we are involved in a type of discrimination because our intent is to select the best moral alternative over less favorable ones. However, when we use inappropriate criteria for making our moral judgments, we are practicing unjust discrimination. Richard Chewning astutely points out that unjust discrimination reveals an ungodly form of favoritism and rejection that violates biblical norms. Scripture reveals that God is not a respecter of persons and that unjust discrimination is an abomination to him (see Deut. 10:17; 2 Chron. 19:7; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Galatians 2:6; Ephes. 6:9; Col. 3:25; James 2:1-9; 1 Peter 1:17). Christians need to be aware, Chewning says, that our “old nature” has a tendency toward becoming protective and defensive whenever our psychological comfort is threatened. Sadly, this perverted reflex is often at the root of discrimination and generally reveals personal insecurities and pride (Chewning, p. 277).

For Christians, unjust discrimination is morally objectionable not only because it is wrong and evil but also because it stands against the revelation of God, who loves all people and offers them reconciliation through Christ. Our worth is tied to the belief that men and women are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), that all people have sinned and come short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23) and that God’s love for the world culminated in Christ’s death on the cross, which covers the sins of those who put faith in him (John 3:16). This egalitarian ideal is also critical to Paul’s conception of the church, where “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28; compare Col. 3:11). Paul’s view was in juxtaposition to that of ethnic Jews who saw themselves as being a superior race because they were God’s chosen people.

The Israelites were commanded to deal with people in a just and loving manner (Deut. 1:17; Deut. 24:17-18); special consideration was to be given to the poor, the widow, the orphan and the needs of the alien, who did not have equal political and economic status with adult Israelite males (Exodus 22:21-27; Leviticus 19:10; Deut. 15:7-11).

Jesus’ teaching and behavior exemplified the importance of dealing with others in an impartial way (Luke 20:21) by practicing love and justice. In so doing he collided with many discriminatory practices of his day. Jesus took a strong stance in his radical inclusion and acceptance of women and children (Mark 10:13-16; John 4:1-27; John 12:1-11); he openly befriended social outcasts (Luke 5:27-31; Luke 18:9-14; John 8:1-11); and he healed the sick and unclean (Luke 5:12-26; Luke 17:11-19). Compassion, not correctness, was his guide.

One of the most important New Testament passages addressing discrimination is the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). In this parable, a man who is robbed and left half dead is passed by “on the other side” of the road by both a priest and a Levite. Yet a Samaritan, despised by Jews as an unclean half-breed, takes pity on him, attends to his wounds, puts him on his own donkey, takes him to an inn, and generously gives the innkeeper enough money to provide for the man to stay for up to two months at the inn.

What makes this parable striking is that the most likely candidates for attending to the man not only ignore his plight but also deliberately pass by on the other side. The person Jesus commends in the parable was neither the religious leader nor the lay associate but a hated foreigner—the Samaritan. If anyone has a reason for passing the injured man by, it is the Samaritan, since Samaritans and Jews were openly hostile toward one another. In this parable, then, Jesus pointedly asserts that authentic love transcends national boundaries.

When Jesus asks, “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” the answer is “The one who had mercy on him.” To this Jesus adds, “Go and do likewise.”

The parable of the good Samaritan is given in response to the poignant question “And who is my neighbor?” Immediately preceding this question in Luke 10:27—and in other passages (Matthew 22:35-40; Mark 12:28-33; compare Leviticus 19:18)—Jesus succinctly provides guidance concerning our priorities and relationship to God and our neighbors.

Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

Christians are called to accept all persons, regardless of race, creed or sex, on equal footing as children of God. In the final analysis, the problem of discrimination (in its negative sense) finds a certain resolution for Christians in the attempt to fulfill God’s law as given in the “new commandment”: “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers” (James 2:8-9).

» See also: Aging

» See also: Business Ethics

» See also: Firing

» See also: Multiculturalism

» See also: Office Politics

» See also: Organizational Culture and Change

» See also: Power, Workplace

» See also: Racism

References and Resources

R. Blank and S. Slipp, Voices of Diversity (New York: American Management Association, 1994); R. C. Chewning, Biblical Principles and Business: The Practice (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1990) 272-84; M. Galen and A. T. Palmer, “White, Male and Worried,” Business Week, January 31, 1994, 50-55; C. Garfield, “Embracing Diversity,” Executive Excellence, October 1994, 8-9; D. J. Miller, “Discrimination,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. W. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) 320-21; L. M. Range, “Sexism,” in Ready Reference: Ethics (Pasadena, Calif.: Salem, 1994) 791-92; A. Reder, In Pursuit of Principle and Profit (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1994); J. Richardson. ed., Annual Editions: Business Ethics 96/97 (Sluice Dock, Guilford, Conn.: Dushkin, 1996); W. H. Shaw and V. Barry, Moral Issues in Business (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1992); D. E. Thoms, “Racism,” in Encyclopedia of Biblical and Christian Ethics (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992) 342-43.

—John E. Richardson