White Privilege and the Myth of Meritocracy-Diversity in Organizations - Essay Example

? White Privilege and the Myth of Meritocracy-Diversity in Organizations Table of Contents Introduction 3 Discussion 3 References 7 Introduction Thispaper explores the concepts of ‘white privilege’ as well as the ‘myth of meritocracy’ in the context primarily of the discussion of diversity in organizations as discussed in the book by Bell (2011) and McIntosh (1990) and similar related literature. The discussion is also made in the additional contexts of the questions that are required to be answered relating to white privileges that have relevance with regard to organizational diversity; white privileges from the vantage point of non-white minority groups; how discrimination fosters white privileges and whites’ perception of their own capabilities and merits; the use of the terms qualified minorities, qualified whites, and qualified women; gender-based privileges; the relationship between wealth and privileges (Bell, 2011; pp. 223-256; McIntosh, 1990; McIntosh, 2009; McNamee and Miller, 2004; Unz, 2012). Discussion Whites here refer to the ethnic groups that fall under the umbrella of non-Hispanic white and have roots in Europe, or else are from North Africa or the Middle East. They include those who self-report being white, or else report themselves to be one or other of the following: Arab, Irish, Polish, Lebanese, Italian, German, or from the Near East. This is also the definition espoused by the US Census Bureau, and forms the basis of the definition for the paper (Bell, 2011, p. 225). By white privileges is meant those privileges that accrue to Whites in America by virtue of the social conventions that work on either positively discriminating whites based on their color to confer special work, consumption, and other social privileges, or to negatively discriminate against non-whites to effectively put whites in positions of economic, social and political power, and in other relevant aspects of social and cultural life in the country. The myth of meritocracy, meanwhile, posits that whites earned their privileges and positions of dominance and power, and that conversely other minority groups effectively have not earned power and therefore are unable to rise into similar positions as whites. The myth of meritocracy also exists as divisions in “earned” power and privileges along gender lines, with white women being in inferior positions at work for instance due to white males having earned their positions through the merits of their own work and capabilities. While there are parties that assert that reverse discrimination exist, and documented in the courts, the reality is that white privilege persists as a social force acting in ways that reinforce those privileges at the expense of women and minorities, even as whites themselves in significant numbers have historically worked for more egalitarian social arrangements among races, viewing diversity in organizations as sources of strength and advantage that lift all in turn (Bell, 2011; pp. 223-256). Answering the first question, McIntosh presents many of the subtle ways by which white privilege presents itself in daily life, and it is easy to imagine that in the context of organizational diversity, many of those presentations are relevant, especially with regard to not being racially profiled for a host of activities including participating in race-based discussions and in discussions on promotions, and with regard to the impact of subtle segregation rules in the choice of housing for employees that may work against drives by organizations to foster greater racial diversity in its employee pools. In promotions discussions, if majority of upper management is white too, then ingrained social forces operating within an organization would work against greater ethnic diversity in the management ranks too, to cite another example (McIntosh, 2009; McIntosh, 1990). To answer question two, If I were a member of a minority ethnic group, the white privileges relating to natural social tendencies to promote and enhance the power of whites over non-whites would be relevant to me, as those would present themselves in organizational politics, in work arrangements, performance appraisals, and inclusion in important projects and teams (Bell, 2011; pp. 223-256; McIntosh, 1990; McIntosh, 2009). In answer to question four, the consideration of meritocracy as a myth is something resonant and relevant for me, given that the readings all point to its existence, or rather to the reality that in society, there are forces that are as relevant, if not more relevant, than the mere workings of merit to advance the careers and interests of people. White privileges are to be considered in this light, as evidence that meritocracy is a myth, because meritocracy in its core is about using abilities and performance alone as the gauges for advancements in careers and in society. The reality of white privileges, on the other hand, point to advancement and access to privileges and opportunities based not on ability and merit but on social color and ethnic cues, with the white majority perpetuating the white privileges by positively discriminating whites for positions of power while at the same time negatively discriminating women and minorities for the same. This goes to the heart of the question with regard to how discriminating against other races and even women work to advance the positions and interests of white majorities, by paving the way for the ascension to positions of power, influence, and privilege of those who are not discriminated against, namely the majority whites. Meanwhile, by being blind by social convention to discrimination’s consequences, whites are able to push forward with their interests without guilt or the need to compensate by changing the rules to even the playing field, so to speak. They just accept it as the natural course of things (Bell, 2011; pp. 223-256; McIntosh, 1990; McNamee and Miller, 2004). For question five, the use of the term qualified minorities has implications for diversity and for the implied meaning that there are unqualified minorities, or that the default is that minorities are not qualified, unless the term is used to separate a few from the lot. This acquires more significance given that the same term is not used for whites, and even for men, so that qualified whites and qualified men are not heard of. The implication of course is that whites and men are qualified by default (Bell, 2011; pp. 223-256; McIntosh, 1990; McNamee and Miller, 2004). In answer to question six, assumptions about the competence of men work to advance their interests in securing positions of power in competition with women, who are seen in contrast to be less competent by social convention (Bell, 2011; pp. 223-256; McIntosh, 1990; McIntosh, 2009). In answer to question seven, meanwhile, wealth brings with it privileges in terms of access to social networks that perpetuate power and access to more wealth and opportunities. Wealth breeds social capital that can be leveraged to acquire more privileges (McNamee and Miller, 2004). References Bell, M. (2011). Diversity in Organizations 2nd Ed. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. McIntosh, P. (1990). White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. Independent School. Retrieved from http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html McIntosh, P. (2009). White Privilege: An Account to Spend. The Saint Paul Foundation. Retrieved from http://spsdiversitycouncil.wikispaces.com/file/view/WhitePrivilege.Account+b%26W.pdf McNamee, S. and Miller, R. (2004). The Meritocracy Myth. Sociation Today 2 (1). Retrieved from http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm Unz, R. (2012). The Myth of American Meritocracy. The American Conservative. Retrieved from http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/ Read More