Encouraging Effective Strategies for Allies to Combat Workplace Racism and Sexism
Over the past few years, progressive groups have been embroiled in intense disputes due to allegations of discrimination based on race and gender. Regrettably, these allegations haven't necessarily resulted in less discrimination, leaving only internal strife in their wake.
My collaborator Betsy Leondar-Wright and I spoke with over 125 people about their perspectives on identifying racist or sexist behavior. Just like many others, we discovered that people have become increasingly aware of the struggles encountered by individuals of color and women. However, we also uncovered that those fighting against discrimination often struggle with recognizing it.
Advocates for equality often commit three logical errors. Each of these mistakes can result in incorrect accusations that disrupt workplaces without resolving issues.
First, some individuals engage in "case-inferring." They rely on common methods of discriminating against people of color and women and presume, based on these patterns alone, that abuse of this kind must be occurring within their organization.
Consider, for instance, the gender wage gap. Despite acknowledging their lack of insight into their colleagues' salaries, some employees still asserted that their workplace pays women less than men. Unfortunately, while there is indeed a wage gap in some workplaces, this is not the case in others. Those who rely on case-inferring risk spreading false and divisive accusations. Additionally, they overlook the primary drivers of the wage gap.
A second logical fallacy propels others to make erroneous accusations. Some engage in "pattern-matching." They perceive an incident or organizational policy in which a person of color or woman experiences an adverse outcome and assume, without considering the specifics of the case or alternative explanations, that it is part of a pattern of similar occurrences.
For example, a worker might observe two job candidates, one white and one black, both interviewed for a position. They are aware that racial bias in hiring exists. If the white candidate secures the position, pattern-matchers might infer without checking that it was due to racial bias against the black candidate.
The issue is that while discrimination could indeed be the cause, alternative explanations may also exist. Perhaps, in this particular instance, the white candidate possessed a specific qualification or performed better during the interview. Without exploring alternative explanations, pattern-matching alone cannot determine if discrimination occurred.
The third logical error involves those who are committed to combating discrimination yet fail to consider that it may not have happened in the first place. We asked our respondents: "A guidance counselor overhears a teacher in the hallway discussing which students should be placed in an advanced math course the following year. The teacher swiftly names six students who consistently receive A's in her class. She subsequently realizes that five of the six students she named were male. Other females in her class also received A's. Did the teacher act in a sexist manner? Why or why not?"
Most respondents aiming to combat sexism asserted that the teacher had acted in a sexist manner. However, once we informed them that the boys had received higher A grades, many continued to believe that sexism had played a part. They argued that the teacher must have been grading the boys more favorably or devoting more time to teaching them. While there may be merit to this assertion, they only considered explanations that supported the notion that the teacher was biased. However, there are additional possibilities. It could be, for instance, that the boys in this particular class were slightly more adept at mathematics than the girls, while the reverse might be true in another class.
Of course, the desire to eliminate discrimination is commendable. However, to accomplish this goal, it is crucial for individuals to avoid committing these logical errors. Instead, an evidence-driven approach is more effective. This can start by analyzing how discrimination typically manifests, but rather than forming conclusions based exclusively on national patterns, individuals can collect data to verify whether that issue exists within their organization. If the data confirms their suspicions, they can bring attention to the issue. By doing so, they will help prevent their workplaces from being plunged into unnecessary conflicts, steer focus away from non-existent problems, and direct resources toward genuinely addressing discrimination.
In the context of combating discrimination, a wrong approach is to assume that a gender wage gap exists in every workplace without verifying the facts. This reliance on common patterns without considering individual circumstances is an example of the logical fallacy known as "case-inferring."
To effectively address issues related to leadership and strategy within progressive groups, it would be beneficial to adopt an evidence-driven approach, avoiding assumptions and relying on data to identify and address instances of discrimination within their organization.
