Machan's Musings - Pitfalls of Diversity
by Tibor R. Machan
Diversity is a goal of many organizations, including private businesses—especially those wishing to gain work from governments. Universities across the country are holding formal sessions in which staff and faculty are instructed about how to stop being insensitive to minorities and anyone who might feel offended by certain language and demeanor.
In the wake of all this, the burden has fallen mainly on employers to shield vulnerable personnel from unpleasant experiences, so that, for example, they are prohibited from being asked certain questions when they are hired or promoted. Even those who have habits that can impede their assigned work have been known to get a pass so as not to violate some provision of, say, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Someone who is an alcoholic or dyslexic might not be refused work or reassigned, lest that be construed as singling out the person for his disability and thus violating his or her civil rights.
It has come to light, however, that all this protectiveness toward certain minorities may actually do them some serious harm. It turns out, for example, that medical doctors have been reluctant to call attention to their patients’ obesity of the last several decades. "The likelihood that a health professional had mentioned a weight problem varied with a child’s age and ethnicity," reports Science News in its September 24th issue. Researchers Cynthia L. Ogden and Carolyn J. Tabak, had written about this matter for the September 2nd issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The younger the obese children, the less likely health professionals would call this to their parents' attention and recommend any sort of remedy.
Of course, such statistics do not say very much, but it is not unlikely that one reason for the reluctance of health professionals to alert parents is that they find doing so awkward, and potentially offensive. In my own case—when, a few years ago I suggested to some of my students that they speak up in class instead of merely sitting passively as I presented the material and discussed it with others—several of them reported me as being insensitive to their cultural background, which encourages students to remain silent instead of raising questions and offering observations or opinions in class. Of course, not taking part in the discussion robs students of the opportunity to hone their skills, and I am responsible, in part, to help them to avoid this. So what’s more important, guarding them against possible offense, or helping them gain a handle on class materials?
The more these strictures of sensitivity are brought to bear on behavior that is actually a matter of choice (and not merely an attributes over which no one has any control), the more teachers, health professionals, and others in the service professions may find themselves hampered in the effort to conscientiously serve their clients. A tax attorney may have to tell a client that his or her way of preparing a report is inadequate, but that client might well take offense, construing this an insult instead of assistance. A hairdresser might suggest a different cut for a client, only to be rebuked for insensitivity. There is, in fact, no end to the possible ways human communication could be undermined by all this worry about hurting people’s feelings. It isn’t just that employers must put up with habits they consider objectionable. They and others could well be impeded in providing valuable information to those who can benefit from it because such information could upset those to whom it is communicated.
There used to be a pretty sensible distinction between lashing out at someone for something he or she had no control over—race, sex, height, national origin, etc.—and matters over which the person had or could gain ample control—e. g., how well one speaks a language, how one dresses, one’s hygiene, and so forth. But when government got into the business of regulating how people interacted, some began to see an opportunity to exploit it all. In the first instance that came to my attention, some San Francisco taxi drivers decided it went against their culture for their employers to require them to cut their hair or stop wearing certain kind of garments.
Now it seems anything about anyone is coming to constitute an essential part of his or her identity and may not be criticized, even for practical purposes. But, as is the case with those young children whose obesity can be a serious medical hazard, the failure to discuss some of these personal attributes could itself be not just something uncomfortable, but out-and-out hazardous. For the sake of not offending someone’s sensibilities, their well-being itself could be placed at risk.
Discuss this Article (11 messages)
|
