Analysis of the Race-Based Conference Call
Yesterday’s post included a near verbatim transcript of the race-based portion of a work-related conference call. The conversation took place between 8 of my team members/coworkers and our supervisor. If you didn’t read yesterday’s post, you should probably check it out because I am about to make a list of some of the issues I have with what was said on the phone call. Starting with:
1. It’s clear Black workers are being denied assignments based solely or primarily on race and/or color;
2. Using race-based assumptions to justify discrimination. It was directly stated that “White yuppies” wanted to see people who are just like them. Therefore, it was recommended that no minorities be sent out to this neighborhood;
3. Using perceived reality to justify discrimination. Even if it is so-called reality that those “White yuppies” wanted to only see people like them, it doesn’t mean an employer—let alone a Federal contractor—should pander to those desires;
4. It is illegal to assign workers to projects simply because of client, customer or coworker preference. We might not find Blacks or other minorities working on most projects at any company if clients, customers, and/or coworkers could dictate staffing based on their biases and so-called comfort level;
5. Race/Color based prejudices were openly shared on that conference call. A White worker openly recommended excluding Black workers from assignments and said that a White person wouldn’t be successful in a Black neighborhood AND that someone “dark and strange” should be sent out for interviews. What does color have to do with anything? Even if it were a legitimate argument to exclude people based on race—and it is not—would that mean that you could also exclude people based on color? So a Black person had to be what shade of “dark” to get that assignment? And what did this White woman mean when she said the interviewer should be both dark and STRANGE?;
6. Using racially offensive language. See #1 and #4;
7. Defending workplace segregation and telling a complaining Black employee to lighten up about the issue (and then making a color-based joke about the Black woman’s complexion and “lightening up,” when she is believed to be off the conference call);
8. The supervisor never corrected either White subordinate. In fact, he defended their comments and made the Black worker out to be hypersensitive or not understanding of how “we work around here.”His actions and inaction on the race- based conversation only serves to encourage the White workers to continue to share these biases and to influence the distribution of work on a race-based basis;
9. The supervisor bad-mouthed the complaining Black worker with her White coworker. He thought he did this behind the Black worker’s back, but she was listening to the conference call with a phone on mute. The supervisor is clearly showing where he stands on this issue and that he is unprofessional and racist;
10. The supervisor even went as far as to “joke” with his White subordinate that he’d hoped she would have called the Black worker the “n-word.” Nothing else needs to be said about his racial biases, lack of professionalism, and every indication that he clearly has no qualms with violating Federal statutes that prohibit discrimination in the workplace;
11. The White workers are ensuring that they never have to interact with the Black community. In fact, one White worker was overheard saying she was “scared of these people [Blacks].” This is clearly a contributing factor to their desire to establish “White work” and “Black work.” There is also a safety issue. For instance, sending Black men and women to dangerous neighborhoods, but not requiring White workers to interview in neighborhoods with higher crime rates. Contrary to popular belief, just because someone is Black doesn’t mean they are accustomed to or are unafraid of violence!
12. To reiterate on #4, it is illegal to discriminate in the workplace. This includes segregation of work assignments, which is at the heart of this issue, as well as race/color discrimination.
Those are the first 12 points, off the top of my head. What do you think? POST A COMMENT!
1. It’s clear Black workers are being denied assignments based solely or primarily on race and/or color;
2. Using race-based assumptions to justify discrimination. It was directly stated that “White yuppies” wanted to see people who are just like them. Therefore, it was recommended that no minorities be sent out to this neighborhood;
3. Using perceived reality to justify discrimination. Even if it is so-called reality that those “White yuppies” wanted to only see people like them, it doesn’t mean an employer—let alone a Federal contractor—should pander to those desires;
4. It is illegal to assign workers to projects simply because of client, customer or coworker preference. We might not find Blacks or other minorities working on most projects at any company if clients, customers, and/or coworkers could dictate staffing based on their biases and so-called comfort level;
5. Race/Color based prejudices were openly shared on that conference call. A White worker openly recommended excluding Black workers from assignments and said that a White person wouldn’t be successful in a Black neighborhood AND that someone “dark and strange” should be sent out for interviews. What does color have to do with anything? Even if it were a legitimate argument to exclude people based on race—and it is not—would that mean that you could also exclude people based on color? So a Black person had to be what shade of “dark” to get that assignment? And what did this White woman mean when she said the interviewer should be both dark and STRANGE?;
6. Using racially offensive language. See #1 and #4;
7. Defending workplace segregation and telling a complaining Black employee to lighten up about the issue (and then making a color-based joke about the Black woman’s complexion and “lightening up,” when she is believed to be off the conference call);
8. The supervisor never corrected either White subordinate. In fact, he defended their comments and made the Black worker out to be hypersensitive or not understanding of how “we work around here.”His actions and inaction on the race- based conversation only serves to encourage the White workers to continue to share these biases and to influence the distribution of work on a race-based basis;
9. The supervisor bad-mouthed the complaining Black worker with her White coworker. He thought he did this behind the Black worker’s back, but she was listening to the conference call with a phone on mute. The supervisor is clearly showing where he stands on this issue and that he is unprofessional and racist;
10. The supervisor even went as far as to “joke” with his White subordinate that he’d hoped she would have called the Black worker the “n-word.” Nothing else needs to be said about his racial biases, lack of professionalism, and every indication that he clearly has no qualms with violating Federal statutes that prohibit discrimination in the workplace;
11. The White workers are ensuring that they never have to interact with the Black community. In fact, one White worker was overheard saying she was “scared of these people [Blacks].” This is clearly a contributing factor to their desire to establish “White work” and “Black work.” There is also a safety issue. For instance, sending Black men and women to dangerous neighborhoods, but not requiring White workers to interview in neighborhoods with higher crime rates. Contrary to popular belief, just because someone is Black doesn’t mean they are accustomed to or are unafraid of violence!
12. To reiterate on #4, it is illegal to discriminate in the workplace. This includes segregation of work assignments, which is at the heart of this issue, as well as race/color discrimination.
Those are the first 12 points, off the top of my head. What do you think? POST A COMMENT!
Labels: discrimination, hostile work environment, racial profiling, stereotypes, supervisor
posted by S. Mary Wills at 4:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home