Diversity Programs and the Labor Market

Diversity programs can be assumed to be a good policy to uphold, but if one truly ponders on the effects of the diversity programs. They will realize something stunning about it. Diversity programs create a system more awkward than a youth dance where all the students align the walls while deeply steering into the ground, in hope of avoiding all eye contact with the opposite sex. As the music plays in the background, the only people dancing are the oldest teachers trying to get the vibe going without it being too strong. This is not to state diversity is bad, but the current approach lacks any analytically thinking that is a must when trying to create a system that encourages diversity.

The issue with the current diversity program is that it morphs the labor market into a labor commodity market that values gender and complexion: for example, a man who is darker is held more highly than another person, and a woman who is darker is more highly held than the darker man because she is both a female and her complexion is considered a minority. This labor commodity market is the result of new diversity commissions being created by companies to satisfy the public. They strive for a benchmark system that does not incubate one's talents, but favors how they appear. In addition, the program tries to ensure a company is hiring and maintaining enough minorities. This can be slightly strange to one who may be affected by it. Furthermore, news articles have written on the subject in such a way that they point at the lack of diversity in companies and later shames the company for it. Now, if one does ponder about it, imagine that you are a worker who wants to demonstrate their talents. Yet, in the background of your mind you may ponder the possibilities that you were hired based on your complexion or gender due to all the attention that is given to this subject. It has a slight alienating experience from your environment. Another view is through the employers, which sometimes they may wonder about a potential lawsuit that may ensue if a candidate poorly receives something. There are many views that can be written: such as, the co-workers, the public, the policymakers, and so on. Everyone has his or her view on the matter, which is carefully traversed through. Last, if the public and news are wondering why people of a certain ethnicities are leaving their jobs, it might be due to the system being immensely strange or they want to try something new. As an end result, it is dehumanizing to individuals because the system commoditizes their complexion and gender. Then the news shames and describes the lack of diversity of the company if one wants to leave his or her job.

What to do when there is no benchmark system? The first step is to think of what the studies have been showing. So far, they have shown that people are inherently biased and the current hiring process is awful. Inevitably, the next method then is to create a blind hiring process that ensures the identity of the individual remains unknown. The only fact that remains is the person's resume that just explains the potential candidate's credentials and the job produces a test to demonstrate capabilities in the field. Yet, the glaring problem one may think about is LinkedIn. But, the site can create a system that encourages a blind system where a potentially job will add the candidates credentials to the vast pool of other potential candidates without exposing the candidates personal traits, or a scout can ask for a set of potential candidates without exposing the candidates. This would destroy the labor commodity market to ensure that talent is the only source of hiring.

This is not only occurring in the labor market, but the general conversations in all areas of diversity are poorly discussed and elaborated on. If the public and individuals keep falling for the diversity benchmark trap, there will be no progress in demolishing the barriers that are erected by racism and sexism. To truly solve a problem is to address it in an unnatural way because humans are naturally biased and motivated by the crowd. Unnatural meaning that people must view the problem without involving the human conditions and emotions. They must ask themselves questions as, "What does this create and is this the best method to address the current problem?"