Diversity Has Many Avenues

I'm perplexed that as a society we still don't have a good handle on our diverse world and on how to be inclusive. We let our instincts gravitate us toward those who are similar to us which marginalizes our world and minimizes our exposure to differences. Thus when differences arise, sometimes it's too much of a surprise or there's suspicion regarding the "others". The "others" could be anyone that's not you.  They could be the majority or the minority.  They could be powerful or not.  Either way, when the "others" are discovered, there can be more of a tendency to shrink away than there is to embrace.  This can be due to a lack of understanding regarding the Diversity Equation which is, despite our differences we are made up of one species. And as I've discovered lately, straight white males are feeling left out of the Diversity Equation. Apparently with all the notions that the Diversity movement have been promoting, straight white males are feeling left out of the equation of racial, gender and sexual orientation equality.

Desolation Boulevard

The case in point is this recent post by Mike Haberman from HR Observations,entitled "Does Diversity Have To Mean Fewer White Guys?".  His post was designed to bring attention to an article from Kellye Whitney at Diversity Executive, "Are White Males Under Attack?" which is a response to Stephen DeFelice's book, "The Attack on the White Male and the Weakening of America". Whitney's article references a couple of points from DeFelice's book, notably the idea that diversity has created demasculization and economic hardship in this country.  I'm not familiar with DeFelice's work but it's not unexpected that a loud voice no matter how unintelligent or unwise can become a heard voice.   What I did not expect was Mike to conclude with the suggestion that white males lack the ability to assemble without "major outcry" and that HR should not create affinity groups within the HR profession. Here he writes:

I think the field of human resources should lead the way and show that diversity is ALL INCLUSIVE. Yet I get dismayed when I see all female, or all African-American HR organizations. The profession that should be the banner holders of diversity carry those banners of exclusivity. Yet how would the members feel if there was an organization of White Male HR Professionals? I believe there would be a major outcry to such an organization. AND FOR THE RECORD I AM NOT SUGGESTING ONE. I am just making a point. While I don't agree with DeFelice I do like that he is making a point that diversity needs to be more diverse. I also agree with him that diversity just for the sake of diversity is foolish. It does need competence added to it.

Giving Mike the benefit of the doubt, he is a compassionate and respected writer in the HR blogging world, and he is "just making a point". But the point I'm reading from both Whitney's and Mike's articles is that straight white males have been excluded from the Diversity Equation and that a different set of rules apply. There's a want to be understood and be brought into the fold.  But if they formed an affinity group, it would be considered unacceptable. Furthermore, it is suggested that affinity groups within HR for non-straight white males are behaving in a non-inclusive way. I'm not part of the straight white male demographic, and despite my inclination to be open-minded, I'm having trouble agreeing with this.

Fascination Street

Diversity and inclusion for many reasons is complicated and there isn't enough room on this post to explain all of the issues.  But to explain it simply:
(1) The idea of diversity is to acknowledge that each of us is different and that differences appear only and always when two people are together.
(2) Inclusion is the idea of putting these differences aside, including everyone despite their identified group and creating a workforce comprised of who's best qualified.
(3) And most important is that it allows for groups that show an affinity for each other to come together and to share common thoughts, triumphs and mistakes. On the surface they may appear to be about exclusivity.  Further inspection reveals this is a method of discovering commonalities amongst each other and with other groups.

The implication that white HR males forming an affinity group would be met with outrage is an assumption. What straight white males should do is forge ahead and create an affinity group for themselves.  If there is such a concern about outrage, consider why you're doing this.  Are you doing it to truly assemble and to share commonalities?  Or are you doing it because you feel threatened by everyone who is not you?  If your agenda is the latter it's likely your actions may be considered defensive, separatist and/or retaliatory. That's what's going to cause outrage, not simply assembling.

The High Road

It's disappointing to hear that affinity groups are considered a contradiction within the HR community. HR SHOULD be the banner holders of allowing these groups to form. Many of these affinity groups have had to endure a history of oppression that has settled into their present-day cultures and unfortunately can be truly difficult for the individuals in the group to comprehend. This is why it's important for these groups to find each other, assemble and to commiserate.

On the flip side of this coin, no group should allow their ranks to be infused with "no one in the outside world can understand us".  I'm of the belief that all Homo sapiens have a common ancestry and a lineage that can be traced back to the first of our species.  It's one thing to understand how you're different from everyone else, but it's another to use that difference to isolate yourselves from the bigger world.

Our profession is largely responsible for the Diversity movement. We have been broadcasting in the workplace that differences are OK.  We've been broadcasting this to individuals and to groups, to businesses and organizations, to statesmen and governments. It's not a contradiction that we would form HR affinity groups to find commonalities.  It's just another avenue toward understanding diversity and inclusion. It's a higher form of understanding. It's an evolution.

Related links:
SHRM Diversity and Inclusion Conference website
New York Times: Winning with Diversity: Affinity and Networking Groups
Brian McNaught: "Frank Dobbin was Absent and Unaccounted For"