UNIT III
BUSINESS AND ITS INTERNAL
LESSON 16:
NATURE OF JOB DISCRIMINATION
We often find people debating on these words “justice,”
“equality,” “racism,” “rights,” and “discrimination”. Till now we
have discussed in depth the words “justice,” “equality” and
“rights”. In this lecture we will discuss about “racism” and
“discrimination”. Lets understand what is the hue and cry all
about.
Points to be covered in this lecture:
• Racism
• Discrimination; types of discrimination
First of all lets understand the meaning of these words: Racism:
the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to
members of other races or,
Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of
another race.
Discrimination: The root meaning of the term “discriminate” is
“to distinguish one ob-ject from another,” a morally neutral and
not necessarily wrongful activity. However, in modern usage the
term is not morally neutral. It is usually in-tended to refer to the
wrongful act of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the
basis of individual merit but on the basis of prejudice or some
other invidious or morally reprehensible attitude. This morally
charged notion of “invidious” discrimination, as it applies to
employment, is what is at issue in this chapter.
In this sense to discriminate in employment is to make an ad-
verse decision (or set of decisions) against employees (or
prospective em-ployees) who belong to a certain class because of
morally unjustified prejudice toward members of that class.
Discrimination in employment thus, must involve three basic
elements:
1. First, it is a decision against one or more employees (or
prospective employees) that is not based on individual merit
such as the ability to perform a given job, seniority, or other
morally legiti-mate qualifications.
2. Second, the decision derives solely or in part from racial or
sexual prejudice, from false stereotypes, or from some other
kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the
class to which the em-ployee belongs.
3. Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or neg-
ative impact on the interests of the employees, perhaps
costing them jobs, promotions, or better pay.
Types of discrimination
• Racism
• On the basis of Gender
• On the basis of Age
• On the basis of Religion
• On the basis of disability
• On the basis of National origin.
48
CONSTITUENCIES
CHAPTER 4:
ETHICS OF JOB DISCRIMINATION
Present Scenario of Job Discrimination
Although many more women and minorities are entering
formerly male dominated jobs, they still face problems that they
would characterize as form of discrimination. In 1993, for
example, ABC sent a male and female, Avnish and Neelam, on
an “experiment” to apply in person for jobs several companies
were advertising. Avnish and Neelam were both trim, neatly
dressed college graduates in their 20s, with identical resumes
indicating management experience. Unknown to the companies,
however, both were secretly wired for sound and had hidden
cameras. One company indicated in its help-wanted ad that it had
several open positions. But when the company recruiter spoke
with Neelam, the only job he brought up was a job answering
phones. A few minutes later, the same recruiter
spoke with Avnish. He was offered a management job. When
interviewed afterwards by ABC, the company recruiter
indicated that he would never want a man answering his phone.
Another company had advertised positions as territory manag-
ers for lawn-care services. The owner of that company gave
Neelam a typing test, discussed her fiance’s business with her,
and then offered her a job as a receptionist at $6 an hour. When
the owner interviewed Avnish, however, he gave him an aptitude
test, chatted with him about how he kept fit, and offered him a
job as territory manager paying $300 to $500 a week. When the
owner was later interviewed by ABC he comments that women
“do not do well as territory managers, which involves some
phys-ical labor.” According to the owner he had also hired one
other woman as a receptionist and had hired several other males
as territory managers.
The experience of young Avnish and Neelam suggest that
sexual discrimina-tion is alive and well. Similar experiments
suggest that racial discrimination also continues to thrive. In
1993 researchers at the Urban Institute published a study in
which they paired several young black men with similar young
white men, matching them in openness, energy level, articulate-
ness, physical char-acteristics, clothing, and job experience.
In the same way, young Hispanic males fluent in English were
matched with young Anglo males. Each member of each pair
was trained and coached in mock interviews to act exactly like the
other. Each member of each pair then applied in person for the
same jobs, ranging from general laborer to management trainee
in manufacturing, hotels, restaurants, retail sales, and office
work. In spite of the fact that all were equally qualified for the
same jobs, blacks and Hispanics were offered jobs 50 percent
fewer times than the young white males.
The root meaning of the term “discriminate” is “to distinguish
one ob-ject from another,” a morally neutral and not necessarily
wrongful activity. However, in modem usage the term is not
morally neutral: It is usually in-tended to refer to the wrongful
act of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the basis of
individual merit but on the basis of prejudice or some other
11.292
invidious or morally reprehensible attitude. This morally charged
notion of “invidious” discrimination, as it applies to
employment, is what is at issue in this chapter. In this sense to
discriminate in employment is to make an ad-verse decision (or
set of decisions) against employees (or prospective em-ployees)
who belong to a certain class because of morally unjustified
prejudice toward members of that class.
Discrimination in employment thus, must involve three basic
elements. First, it is a decision against one or more employees
(or prospective employees) that is not based on individual merit
such as the ability to perform a given job, seniority, or other
morally legiti-mate qualifications. Second, the decision derives
solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, from false
stereotypes, or from some other kind of morally unjustified
attitude against members of the class to which the em-ployee
belongs. Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or
neg-ative impact on the interests of the employees, perhaps
costing them jobs, promotions, or better pay.
Forms of Discrimination: Intentional and
Institutional Aspects
A helpful framework for analyzing different forms of discrimi-
nation can be constructed by distinguishing the extent to which a
discriminatory act is in-tentional and isolated (or non institu-
tionalized) and the extent to which it is un-intentional and
institutionalized
1. Isolated and Intentional Discrimination
A discriminatory act may be part of the isolated (non
institutionalized) behavior of a single individual who
intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of personal
prejudice. In the ABC “experi-ment” described, for example,
the attitudes that the male interviewer is de-scribed as having
may not be characteristic of other company interviewers: His
behavior toward female job seekers may be an intentional
but isolated instance of sexism in hiring.
2. Institutionalized and Intentional Discrimination Second,
a discriminatory act may be part of the routine behavior of an
institutionalized group, which intentionally and knowingly
dis-criminates out of the personal prejudices of its members.
The Ku Klux Klan, for example, is an organization that
historically has intentionally institutional-
ized discriminatory behavior, and, in India, for example, The
Muthut Finance group prefers Keralites for any post in their
company.
3. Isolated and Unintentional Discrimination
Third, an act of discrimination may be part of the isolated
(non institutionalized) behavior of a single individual who
unin-tentionally and unknowingly discriminates against
someone because he or she unthinkingly adopts the traditional
practices and stereotypes of his or her so-ciety. If the
interviewer quoted in the ABC experiment described, for
example, acted unintentionally, then he would fall into this
third category.
4. Institutionalized and Unintentional discrimination
Fourth, a dis-criminatory act may be part of the systematic
routine of a corporate organiza-tion or group that
unintentionally incorporates into its formal institutionalized
11.292
procedures practices that discriminate against women or
minorities. The two companies examined in the ABC;
experiment, for example, described organi-zations in which
the best-paying jobs are routinely assigned to men and the
worst-paying jobs are routinely assigned to women, on the
stereotypical as-sumption that women are fit for some jobs
and not for others. There may be no deliberate intent to
discriminate, but the effect is the same: a racially or sex-ually
based pattern of preference toward white males.
Historically, there has been a shift in emphasis from seeing
discrimina-tion primarily as an intentional and individual matter,
to seeing it as a sys-tematic and not necessarily inten- tional
feature of institutionalized corporate behavior, and back again,
in some quarters, to seeing it as an intentional and individual
matter. During the early 1960s, employment discrimination was
seen primarily as an intentional, calculated act performed by one
individual on another. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
for example, seems to have had this notion of discrimination in
mind when it stated:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer
1. To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise discriminate against any in-dividual with respect to
his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of em-
ployment because of such individual’s race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin; or
2. To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for
em-ployment in any way that would deprive or tend to
deprive any individual of employment opportunities or
otherwise adversely affect his status as an em-ployee because
of such individual’s race, color, sex, or national origin
However, in the late 1960s, the concept of discrimination was
enlarged to in-clude more than the traditionally recognized
intentional forms of individual discrimination. By the early
1970, the term “discrimination” was being used regularly to
include disparities of minority representation within the ranks
of a firm, regardless of whether or not the disparity had been
intentionally cre-ated. An organization was engaged in discrimi-
nation if minority group repre-sentation within its ranks was
not proportionate to the group’s local availability. The discrimi-
nation would be remedied when the proportions of minorities
within the organization were made to match their proportions
in the available workforce by the use of “affirmative action”
programs.
Overview
• Racism refers to the prejudice that members of one race are
intrinsically superior to members of other races.
• Discrimination (employment) is the wrongful act of
distinguishing illicitly among people not on the basis of
individual merit but on the basis of prejudice or some other
invidious or morally reprehensible attitude.
Activity
Discuss in general the qualities that make a person suitable for a
job. Why do you think we see job discrimination?
49
For useful Documents like
this and
Lots of more
Educational and
Technological Stuff...

Visit...

www.thecodexpert.com