Why is Our Nation So Obsessed with Race?

This morning, I read an article in the Portland Business Journal about the Oregon Department of Transportation refining their quota system to be more specific about which minorities will get what percentage of contracts. This afternoon, a friend told me her 15 year-old daughter was accosted at school by a student who called her the n-word and then snarled “White power!”

The ODOT quota refinement is the epitome of bureaucratic stupidity. The incident at school is an example of ugly, mindless malice. But there’s a common thread between them:  Basing judgments on race rather than individual merits.

The state of Oregon did a “disparity study” and determined that, even with a mandate that 14% of ODOT contracts go to minority-owned businesses, specific minorities are underrepresented. Native-American contractors got 8.2% of ODOT contracts and Hispanic-American contractors got 6%, while African-American and Asian-American contractors got less than 1% combined. Over a third of the businesses qualifying for the state’s “disadvantaged business enterprise” certification are African-American, and almost a quarter are Asian-American.

So the state decided to rectify the imbalance by requiring at least 6% of new contracts to be awarded to African-American or Asian-American contractors. But now Native-American and Hispanic-American contractors are claiming discrimination because they foresee losing contracts to African-American and Asian-American contractors to meet the new micro-quota.

Ordinarily, contracts are awarded based on bids and qualifications. If certain contractors aren’t getting contracts, presumably, either their bids are too high or they’re not as well-qualified. On the other hand, if the reason they aren’t getting contracts is because of corruption or bigotry on the part of those awarding the contracts, then those individuals shouldn’t be in charge of awarding contracts. If that’s the case, changing the quota requirements won’t address the real issue. But, if that’s not the issue, then the reallocation of quotas is even more senseless, and can only result in either costing the taxpayers more or in hiring less qualified contractors.

If the purpose of quotas is to ensure equal opportunity, regardless of race, sex, or whatever, why not award the contract to the most qualified contractor with the lowest bid, regardless of race, sex, or whatever? The imposition of quotas inherently creates a double — or, in this case, triple — standard, pitting African/Asian-Americans against Hispanic/Native-Americans. And, after requiring 6% of contracts to go to either African-American or Asian-American contractors, what happens if Asian-Americans end up with 5% of the contracts and African-Americans with only 1%? Will they then mandate that African-Americans must get 3%?

Perhaps the only way to make this work would be to allocate contracts based strictly on demographics. If exactly 5% of the population is of whatever ethnic derivation, then exactly 5% of the contracts would be set aside for contractors of that ethnicity. And, of course, within each ethnic allocation, half of the contracts would have to go to Female-Americans, lest we be condemned as sexist…

On the other side of the coin from senseless bureaucracies awarding contracts based on race rather than qualifications, we have senseless individuals, viciously spewing invective at individuals they don’t even know, feeling justified because they’re a different race.

My friend’s daughter is a shy, quiet girl in her freshman year of high school in a small city in rural Oregon. There aren’t many black families here, so she attracts attention just by existing. 15 is a difficult age for girls, with all the changes they’re going through, and even a girl who blends right in can feel painfully self-conscious at times. For a shy girl, who shuns being the center of attention, it must be tough to be the only black kid in class, even on a good day.

This is a family that believes in personal responsibility, and would never seek or expect special consideration based on race. So, after the incident occurred, their daughter refused to report it. It was humiliating enough to be singled out for denigration and intimidation because of her race, without complaining to the authorities like a victim demanding redress. That isn’t the way she was raised. But, when her mother recounted the incident to me, recalling the pain in her daughter’s eyes made her break down and cry. And she’s a pretty tough woman.

Kids will be cruel and call other kids names. That’s part of life. But it’s a hard lesson to learn for a 15 year-old girl that she has classmates who feel a blind hatred toward her, and cannot even see her for the person she is, just because of her race.

Nobody’s entitled to special benefits because of their race. Nobody should be subjected to malicious harassment because of their race. Each person should be judged on their own character and their individual merits. Why is that so hard for so many people to grasp?

---

Bookmark/Rate this post:

Leveraging Diversity the Right Way

A number of studies* in recent years have demonstrated that diverse groups come up with better solutions than homogenous groups in a variety of different types of problem-solving and decision-making tasks. The more complex the task, and the more creativity required, the greater the advantage of diverse groups over homogenous groups. This is not particularly surprising. When each member has something unique to bring to the table, the group has a larger pool of experience and skills upon which to build. A solution subjected to input and examination from multiple perspectives is also apt to be more robust. Given the evidence, and the logic to support it, it’s clearly in the best interests of businesses to leverage diversity in their workforces.

There are many types of diversity. As a society, we’ve become much more focused on categorical diversity than individual diversity. We go to great lengths to acknowledge and embrace every category of diversity imaginable. The government provides incentives and even sometimes quotas to ensure diversity in our workplaces and educational institutions, and certain “protected classes” of people cannot be terminated without consulting the legal department first. But are we focusing on the right kind of diversity, and are we doing it in the right way?

The original purpose of diversity legislation was to remove barriers for qualified individuals who belong to certain categories that have been subject to discrimination based on negative stereotypes. However, by creating quotas, special protections, and diversity incentives, we induce employers and others to think in terms of categories rather than the unique merits of each individual. That was clearly not the intent of these policies, but the result is nevertheless predictable. Policies that don’t accomplish their intent are, at best, ineffective and, at worst, detrimental.

Attempts by the government to promote diversity can indavertently encourage employers to “lower the bar” for individuals who happen to belong to a targeted category when they need to fill a quota or qualify for an incentive. This is harmful in two ways. On an individual basis, the person who is accepted with lesser qualifications than his or her peers is not made aware that their qualifications are inadequate, depriving them of the opportunity to improve their qualifications before entering the field. This puts them at a greater risk of failure than those who had to meet a higher bar to get in. This phenomenon, taken on a large scale, ensures that a greater proportion of people from the targeted categories will be less successful than their peers, reinforcing (or even creating) the same sort of negative perceptions the diversity measures were intended to counteract.

A rational way to address this problem would be to focus on individual diversity rather than categorical diversity. The value in each individual lies in what’s unique about them rather than what they have in common with others. An individual may belong to multiple categories (whether by birth, by choice, or by circumstance), and each one may contribute in different ways to their overall identity. But each individual is far more than the sum of the categories to which they belong, and should be judged solely according to their own unique merits.

If we truly value individual diversity, then all other types of diversity follow without need for special designation. The studies referenced above show that it’s in the best interest of employers to hire individuals who are not only highly qualified, but also have diverse backgrounds and experiences. Employers who hire the best resources available, and know how to leverage diversity, will be more successful than their competitors who don’t. If diversity leads to success, then success will lead to more diversity. It’s not necessary for the government to legislate that businesses act in their own best interest. If the government gets out of the diversity business, the free market will accomplish it more effectively.

*Sources:  Stanford Graduate School of Business, Leiden University, Tufts University, University of Michigan

---

Bookmark/Rate this post: