HRER836 Penn State Privilege and Disadvantage Race Ethnicity Questions Privilege and Disadvantage Exercise Provide a list of the different kinds of privil
HRER836 Penn State Privilege and Disadvantage Race Ethnicity Questions Privilege and Disadvantage Exercise
Provide a list of the different kinds of privileges you experience based on any of the following social dimensions: race, gender, religion, social class, sexual orientation, and disability.
If you are not privileged in any of these ways, use a friend or relative who has privilege in one of these categories.
Once you have completed your list, provide your answers to the following questions (in 1 paragraph per question or approximately 500 words total).
How do your privileges (or lack of privileges) affect your life, your ability to achieve your goals and success?
Which of the privileges from your list do you believe are unavailable to some people because they belong to a particular group? List the group(s). Why do you think it is that they are unavailable?
What privileges are unavailable to you that other people from certain groups enjoy? List each privilege and the group “you believe” has access to it. 5/20/2019
HRER836: Diversity in the Workplace
HRER836: D
W
Lesson 02: Race, Ethnicity, and National Origin in the
Workplace
National Origin
National origin is also protected under Title VII and Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Discrimination based on
national original can happen when a person is treated adversely because he or she is from a particular country, or
because they speak with an accent, or appear to be of a particular ethnicity. Both disparate treatment and disparate
impact theories of discrimination are applicable to claims of discrimination based on national origin. The McDonnel
Douglas test for proving disparate treatment cases, where only circumstantial evidence of discriminations is available,
also applies to discrimination on the basis of national origin.
Under Title VII employers cannot make their employment decision based upon the applicants’ national origin. The
number of complaints that continued to be filed (at the rate of several thousand per year) with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) shows that organizations face many challenges. The EEOC defines discrimination
based upon national origin to include “the denial of equal employment opportunity” based upon the applicant’s ancestor’s
place of origin, or because the applicant has the physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group.”
It also protects those who are not citizens of the US. It does not provide protection based upon citizenship, just national
origin.
Racial Harassment
Employers can also be liable for racial harassment under Title VII. What is racial harassment? It is unwelcome severe
and pervasive behavior that is based on race and that unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or
creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. The EEOC provides the following examples that would
constitute harassing conduct in the workplace: “offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or
threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work
performance. An employer may be held liable for the harassing conduct of supervisors, coworkers, or non-employees
(such as customers or business associates) over whom the employer has control.” ( EEOC)
Ethnicity
While we often focus on race, ethnicity is another important factor that we must recognize. Often, ethnicity is not as
visible as race. Accordingly, certain individuals who may not have visible ethnic characteristics may experience less
harassment or discrimination than individuals who cannot escape visibility.
Color
It is important to remember that Title VII also prohibits discrimination based upon “color.” While the statue does not define
“color,” it is understood to mean skin, shade, tone or pigmentation. An individual is discriminated based on his/her
lightness, darkness or other color characteristics. People of the same race can also discriminate against each other
based on color (for example, hiring only light complexion individuals for certain front end jobs).
Affirmative Action
Diversity is not affirmative action. Many people do not properly understand affirmative action and, of course, it is
controversial and widely viewed negatively. However, four issues need to be clearly understood. First affirmative action is
not part of Title VII. Second, affirmative action does not apply to all employees. Third, contrary to widespread
https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1986024/modules/items/26606918
1/2
5/20/2019
HRER836: Diversity in the Workplace
misperception, it does not require quotas and preferences but it does permit recruitment of qualified women and
minorities into an employer’s workforce. It is designed to correct present day inequities and (demonstrated)
underrepresentation based upon gender and race. Finally, affirmative action is not the same as valuing diversity or proper
managing of diversity in the workplace. Diversity initiatives within organizations are “designed to enhance the individual’s
awareness, understanding, and acceptance of differences between people” (R. Roosevelt Thomas).
Differences do not necessarily imply inequality. How companies manage diversity, given the fact that their employees are
far more diverse than ever before, is linked to strategic goals that strive to maximize the strengths and contribution of all
employees. This is different from the goal of affirmative action, which seeks to infuse qualified members of minority
groups into an employer’s workforce, and/or into particular higher level positions.
As previously stated, we know that generally minority groups have not been able to achieve high level management
positions and this is because they face many visible and invisible obstacles as they seek to climb the corporate ladder.
Clearly, effective diversity training for employers is crucial, but as we are about to see in the next few assignments,
developing a diversity training plan alone is not sufficient.
https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1986024/modules/items/26606918
2/2
5/20/2019
HRER836: Diversity in the Workplace
HRER836: D
W
Lesson 02: Race, Ethnicity, and National Origin in the
Workplace
Commentary – Race Relations in the U.S.
Given the history of race-relations in the U.S., claims of race-based discrimination, including unfair access, privilege, and
entitlement remain common occurrences. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for employers to
discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Title VII protects people of all races and not just
people of color. However, despite the progress that has been made since Title VII was enacted, claims of discrimination
continue to be facts of life in the workplace and the costs of discrimination are both social and individual. Statistical data
indicates that discrimination still exists today. But we first have to understand what we mean when we discuss
discrimination. Discrimination is “the provision of unequal benefits to people of difference ascriptive status despite
identical qualification and merit.” (Samuel Cohn, Race, Gender and Discrimination, 2000). In other words, it occurs
because of the individual’s race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and even their religion. Prejudice is different from
discrimination, because one is attitude and beliefs towards a group or an individual based on their race, ethnicity, and
sexual orientation, among others. Discrimination is when those beliefs and attitudes are acted upon, such as denial of
employment, promotion, equitable wage, denial of housing and so forth it. Today, there is significant income disparities
between whites and racial minority employee performing the same or similar jobs with the same educational attainment.
Per this lesson’s reading on the employment situation, statistical evidence also confirms that unemployment rates are
higher among minority groups than among majority groups. See the United States Department of Labor Employment Situ
ation Summary (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) . Racial minorities are also notably underrepresented in high
executive positions in many companies and may also be confined to low status jobs. Are these disparities due to
discrimination?
https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1986024/modules/items/26606916
1/1
5/20/2019
HRER836: Diversity in the Workplace
HRER836: D
W
Lesson 02: Race, Ethnicity, and National Origin in the
Workplace
Title VII
Title VII prohibits race and color discrimination in every aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, promotion,
wages, benefits, work assignments, performance evaluations, training, transfer, leave, discipline, layoffs, discharge, and
any other term, condition, or privilege of employment. Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also
practices that appear to be neutral, but that limit employment opportunities for some racial groups and is not based on
business need (The U.S. Employment Opportunity Commission). Simply claiming Title VII violation is not enough. It can
be proved directly or indirectly:
Disparate treatment claims based upon race may be proven either through direct evidence that an employment
decision was made based upon race or color, or it can be proven circumstantially.
Direct evidence can include negative racial remarks by the persons making decisions that adversely affect an
employee of that particular race, or the evidence can be that a person or persons who are members of a particular
race have been treated differently than comparable persons of a different race.
Circumstantial evidence (McDonnel Douglas test) can be used when there is no direct evidence of discrimination
based upon race, but race discrimination can be inferred. There are four elements that must be circumstantially
proven, assuming that the claim is racial discrimination: (1) the employee is a member of the a protected racial
group; (2) the employee was meeting the employer’s legitimate performance expectations; (3) the employee was
nevertheless discharged; and (4) the employer treated similarly situated employees of other races more favorably.
If these elements are proven, then an employer must articulate a non-discriminatory reason for the discharge.
Disparate impact discrimination based upon race occurs when seemingly race neutral policies and decisions
impact significantly more on members of one racial group than members of other racial group(s).
https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1986024/modules/items/26606917
1/1
Warning Concerning Copyright Restrictions
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code)
governs the reproduction of copyrighted material.
Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives
are permitted to furnish a reproduction if used for “private study,
scholarship or research.” A second condition is that only single
articles or chapters of a work totaling no more than 15% of the total
number of pages be reproduced. Any use of a reproduction that exceeds
these guidelines may be considered copyright infringement.
This institution reserves the right to refuse any request for
reproduction that is deemed a violation of current copyright
guidelines.
This material has been reproduced from the following source:
Johnson, Allan G. Privilege, oppression, and difference. In Privilege, power, and difference.
Boston. McGraw-Hill. 2006. Ch. 2. pp. 12-40.
Date prepared: 5/25/2005
This material is presented for use solely by authorized faculty and
students of the Pennsylvania State University. Further reproduction or
distribution of this material is expressly prohibited.
This material may be made available on alternative media upon request.
Contact Course Reserves at ereserves@psulias.psu.edu or by phone at
814-863-0324.
If you are experiencing problems viewing or printing this document,
visit http://reserve.libraries.psu.edu/access.htm or click on the blue
Help button in the Cat for troubleshooting information.
Warning Concerning Copyright Restrictions
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the
reproduction of copyrighted material.
Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are permitted
to furnish a reproduction if used for “private study, scholarship or research.” A
second condition is that only single articles or chapters of a work totaling no more
than 15% of the total number of pages be reproduced. Any use of a reproduction
that exceeds these guidelines may be considered copyright infringement.
This institution reserves the right to refuse any request for reproduction that is
deemed a violation of current copyright guidelines.
This material has been reproduced from the following source:
McIntosh, Peggy. White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See
Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies. Working Paper No. 189. Wellesley
College Center for Research on Women. 1988. pp. 1-19.
Date prepared: 9/26/2008
This material is presented for use solely by authorized faculty and students of the
Pennsylvania State University. Further reproduction or distribution of this material
is expressly prohibited.
This material may be made available in alternative media upon request. Please
contact Course Reserves Services at ereserves@psulias.psu.edu or by phone at
(814) 863-0324.
If you are experiencing problems viewing or printing this document, please visit
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/reserve/useelectronicreserves.htm for
troubleshooting information. If further assistance is required, please send a
description of the problem to ereserves@psulias.psu.edu that includes the
course and instructor for which the material is on reserve, as well as the title of
the material.
•
Through work to bring materials and perspectives from Women’s Studies
into the rest of the curriculum, I have often noticed men’s unwillingness
to grant that they are over-privileged in the curriculum, even though they
may grant that women are disadvantaged.
Denials which amount to taboos
surround the subject of advantages which men gain from women’s
disadvantages. ,These denials protect male privilege from being fully
recognized, acknowledged, lessened, or ended.
Thinking through unacknowledged male privilege as a phenomenon with a
life of its own, I realized that since hierarchies in our society are
interlocking, there was most likely a phenomenon of white privilege which
was similarly denied and protected, but alive and real in its effects.
As
a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something
which puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of
its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage.
I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege,
as males are taught not to recognize male privilege.
So I have begun in
an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. This
paper is a partial record of my personal observations, and not a scholarly
analysis.
It is based on my daily experiences within my particular
circumstances.
I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of
unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which
I was “meant” to remain oblivious.
White privilege is like an invisible
weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps,
guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and
blank checks.
Since I have had trouble facing white privilege, and describing its
results in my life, I saw parallels here with men’s reluctance to
acknowledge male privilege.
Only rarely will a man go beyond
acknowledging that women are advantaged
to acknowledging that men have
unearned advantage, or that unearned privilege has not been good for men’s
development as human beings, or for society’s development, or that
privilege systems might ever be challenged and changed.
I will review here several types or layers of denial which I
see at
work protecting, and preventing awareness about, entrenched male
privilege.
Then I will draw parallels, from my own experience, with the
denials which veil the facts of white privilege.
Finally, I will list 46
ordinary and daily ways in which I experience having white privilege,
within my life situation and its particular social and political
frameworks.
Yriting this paper has been difficult, despite warm receptions for
the talks on which it is based. l
newly accountable.
For describing white privilege makes one
As we in Yomen’s Studies work reveal male privilege
and ask men to give up some of their power, so one who writes about having
white privilege must ask, “Having described it, what will I do to lessen
1
This paper was presented at the Virginia Yomen’s Studies
Association conference in Richmond in April, 1986 and the
American Educational Research Association conference in
Boston in October, 1986 and discussed with two groups
of participants in the Dodge Seminars for Secondary
School Teachers in New York and Boston in the spring
of 1987.
2
or end it?”
The denial of men’s
overprivi~eged
discussions of curriculum change work.
state takes many forms in
Some claim that men must be
central in the curriculum because they have done most of what is important
or distinctive in life or in civilization.
Some recognize sexism in the
curriculum but deny that it makes male students seem unduly important in
life.
Others
agr~e
that certain individual thinkers
oriented but deny that there is any
frameworks or
are blindly male-
systemic tendency in disciplinary
epistemology to over-empower men as a group. Those men who
do grant that male privilege takes institutionalized and
are
still
likely to deny that male hegemony has
personally.
Virtually all men
embedded forms
opened doors for them
deny that male overreward alone can
explain men’s centrality in all the inner sanctums of our most powerful
institutions.
Moreover, those few who will acknowledge that male
privilege systems have over-empowered them usually end up doubting that we
could dismantle these privilege systems.
They may say they will work to
improve women’s status, in the society or in the university, but they
can’t or won’t support the idea of lessening men’s.
In curricular terms,
this is the point at which they say that they regret they cannot use any
of the interesting new scholarship on women because the syllabus is full.
When the talk turns to giving men less cultural room, even the most
thoughtful and fair-minded
of the men I know well tend to reflect, or
fall back on, conservative assumptions about the inevitability of present
gender relations and distributions of power, calling on precedent or
sociobiology and psychobiology to demonstrate that male domination is
natural and follows inevitably from evolutionary pressures.
3
Others resort
to arguments from “experience” or religion or social responsibility or
wishing and dreaming.
After I realized, through faculty development work in Women’s
Studies, the extent to which men work from a base of unacknowledged
privilege, I understood that much of their oppressiveness was unconscious.
Then I remembered the frequent charges from women of color that white
women whom they encounter are oppressive.
I began to understand why we
are justly seen as oppressive, even when we don’t see ourselves that way.
At the very
le~t,
obliviousness of one’s privileged state can make a
person or group irritating to be with.
I began to count the ways in which
I enjoy unearned skin privilege and have been conditioned into oblivion
about its existence, unable to see that it put me “ahead” in any way, or
put my people ahead, overrewarding us and yet also paradoxically damaging
us, or that it could or should be changed.
My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as
an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture.
I was taught to see myself as an individual whose moral state depended on
her individual moral will.
At school, we were not taught about slavery in
any depth; we were not taught to see slaveholders as damaged people.
Slaves were seen as the only group at risk of being dehumanized.
My
schooling followed the pattern which Elizabeth Minnich has pointed out:
whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative,
and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this
is seen as work which will allow “them” to be more like “us.”
I think
many of us know how obnoxious this attitude can be in men.
After frustration with men who would not recognize male privilege, I
4
decided to try to work on myself at least by identifying some of the daily
effects of white
~rivilege
in my life.
It is crude work, at this…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
