What Do You Do When The Law Doesn’t Work? Adult Educators’ Role In Fighting Workplace Discrimination

An analysis of research suggests that ethnic/racial group members lack informal access to developmental opportunities in the workplace. Legal scholars critique Title VII law as ineffective in current organizations. Research shows the work of adult educators is critical in fighting discrimination in the absence of effective legal protection. Purpose An earlier analysis of existing research strongly supported the assertion that institutional racism in the private sector impedes race/ethnic group member access to workplace learning and career development opportunities and as a result, to career and pay advancement (Ross-Gordon et al., 2005). In this paper, we extend this earlier analysis of the research literature to (1) review race/ethnicity and workplace learning beyond the private sector to employment in education, the public and private sectors, and community work organizations; (2) look at shifts in the nature of workforce discrimination from individual and institutional to group and network level discrimination; (3) examine legal scholars’ analyses of the current effectiveness of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; and (4) identify strategies adult educators can use to fight new forms of workplace discrimination. Research Methods Our analysis of the research on race/ethnicity and access to workplace learning, career development opportunities, and advancement was based on a literature review of 48 data-based research articles and 3 literature reviews focused on corporations (23), pre-K-12 schools (12), higher education (14), public administration (1), and community organizations (1). Databases we searched include Business Source Premier, Dissertation Abstracts International, Expanded Academic ASAP, JSTOR, PsychInfo, Education Full Text, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Medline, and Social Sciences Full Text. We also conducted manual searches of conference proceedings for both the Academy of Human Resources Development and the Adult Education Research Conference since 1995. We included in our search general terms like “race”, “racism”, “ethnicity”, “ethnic minorities”, and terms specific to particular racial/ethnic groups in combination with work-learning, terms such as training, on-the-job-training, mentoring, career development, and organizational development. Literature Analysis In an earlier analysis of the literature (Brooks & Clunis, 2005), we identified six major barriers to learning and career advancement. (1) Mentoring opportunities were found to be significantly lacking for both Blacks and Hispanics (Alvarado & Lynham, 2005; Bush 2000; Byrd, 1999; Giscombe & Mattis, 2002; Palmer, 2001), while at the same time they were identified as crucial to rising within organizations. This was regardless of the type of institution. According to Caputto & Cianni’s (1997) study, whites had more mentoring opportunities than Blacks. (2) The link between education/training and advancement was nuanced. Caputto & Cianni (1997), in comparing cohorts of Black and White women found that as cohorts matured, the cumulative intensity of training began to account for some variance in income, however education and employment experience did contribute to income levels, as did factors like number of children, marital status, & race. They also found that more White than Black women were engaged in managerial/professional training. Alvarado & Lynham’s (2005) exploration of the literature found that Hispanics reported a lower level of experience and training than their nonHispanic White counterparts. Clayton (2001) identified the specific training concerns of Mexican American women working in the manufacturing industry around Kansas City want ESL classes, diversity awareness for supervisors, Spanish language for supervisors, extended lunch hour to participate in community organizations, tuition paid at time of signing up for course. For women in the public schools, race/ethnicity affect the level of training needed to compete with male colleagues (Byrd 1999). Overall, formal education played a larger role in the advancement of individuals from race/ethnic groups than did training (Caputto & Cianni 1997; Price et al., 2005; Byrd 1999). (3) Black managers reported having less social capital, lower promotion rates, and less psychosocial support than White managers (James, 2000). Byrd (1999) found ethnicity and race to be significant to women’s exclusion from informal socialization networks. Lack of access to information, the “good ole boy” network, and lack of African American organization for networking contributed to the absence of African American superintendents in White suburban school districts (Jackson, 2002). Lack of access to influential others was related to the double marginalization of gender and race/ethnicity (Giscombe & Mattis, 2002). Finally, pointing toward employment discrimination as well as the value of a strong network, Taber (2003) writes that when controlling for organizational demography, Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians were more likely than Whites to have been hired through employee referrals. Additionally, women do not appear to use networking to get jobs as often as men do. (4) Developmental experiences were critical to advancement across institutional setting (Robinson, 1997; Palmer, 2001; Cianni & Romberger, 1995; Parker et al., 1997; Robinson, 1997). Cianni & Romberger (1995) respondents saw Whites as given more encouragement to assume new responsibilities than Blacks; Whites reported receiving more special projects than Hispanics. Black women managers perceived a disparity in career opportunities compared to White men and women. (5) Race and gender discrimination and prejudice were strong themes in the literature, including intraracial discrimination. Palmer’s (2001) participants, African-Americans working in training and organizational development identified experiencing prejudice, stereotypes, racial and gender discrimination, and stereotyping. Sims & Roth’s (2003) study suggested that within groups individuals with lighter skin have more privilege than those with darker skin. The professional Hispanic women in Barcena’s (1993) study reported having their appearance criticized, being accused of bias in favor of others of their same ethnicity, being treated as invisible or lacking credibility, being excluded from the information loop, being demeaned because of their Spanish accent, and having their values denied the same importance as White values. Racial/ethnic stereotyping was reported in several of the studies (Robinson, 1997; Barcena, 1993; Byrd, 1999; Palmer, 2001; Giscombe & Mattis, 2002). (6) Several studies reported that women who also claimed a minority racial/ ethnic group identity faced more barriers to advancement than men (Barcena,1993; Bloom, 2001; Byrd, 1999; Combs, 2003; Giscombe & Mattis, 2002; Hite, 2004; Houston-Brown, 2002; Macias, 1995; Palmer, 2001; Pressey, 1997; Regules, 1998). Giscombe & Mattis (2002) identified disadvantages for women of color compared to White women as negative stereotypes about ethnicity and gender, lack of access to influential others, lack of mentors, and ultimately, less optimism about advancement. This included the challenge of balancing the major responsibility for childcare with a career. Additionally, the studies we reviewed showed that both Black and Hispanic persons experienced significant discrimination, while White persons, both male and female, were generally unaware of their own racial prejudices (Combs, 2003; Darden, 2003; Robinson, 1997). However, Parker, Baltes, & Christensen (1997) concluded from their quantitative study that White men did not associate support for Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity with a loss in career development opportunities, organizational injustice or negative work attitudes, whereas White women, Black, Hispanic, and Asians associated it with a gain in opportunities, organizational justice, and positive work attitudes. Career facilitators included mentors, family and spouse support, peer support, creating own opportunities and informal social network (Combs, 2003; Darden, 2003; Padilla, 2003; Palmer, 2001; Peery, 1998; Regules, 1997; Silva, 2003). Interestingly, 2 articles on Hispanics (Peery, 1998; Zuniga, Skaruppa & Powell, 2000) observed that assimilating to the dominant White culture improved career advancement, while none of the articles on Blacks made the same observation. For example, in their qualitative study of 5 Hispanic corporate managers, Zuniga, Skaruppa & Powell (2000) looked at the effect of the degree of assimilation on career advancement and concluded that value and culture congruence with management were important if Hispanic managers wish to advance. To summarize, the research shows discrimination occurring mostly within the domain of informal learning through subtle mechanisms of exclusion from opportunities for career-building developmental opportunities. A Shift in the Nature of Workplace Discrimination The recent changes in workplace organization create new spaces for discrimination to function. With the flattened workplace, we have begun to monitor progress on the diagonal or horizontal rather than in vertical steps. Discrimination thus may appear more as an absence of opportunity and development than as an “identifiable decision to exclude, such as a denial of promotion with a single institutional hierarchy” (Green 2003, p. 105). Green (2003) points to workplace changes that correspond with the increases in subtle forms of racism: (1) flattening of hierarchies, (2) a blurring of job boundaries, (3) the allocation of work to teams rather than individuals, and (4) the increased use of skill-based, individualistic, and flexible methods of evaluation. Thus, informal groups and networks often decide who benefits from important assignments, mentoring, networking, and training. Racism as expressed within groups and networks “represents a subtle, often unintentional, form of bias that char