Exclusivity in Inclusive environments
December 22nd, 2008
I was just reading a blog post about Google’s aspirations to be an “organization that reflects global diversity” and to foster an “inclusive work environment”. They do this by having employee-driven resource groups.
I understand the gist of this article… these resource groups get together and think about their communities and do good. But I have to wonder, what is inclusive about being exclusive? Why is there a need for exclusive groups, either race or gender-specific, to be considered an inclusive environment?
I’m surprised that in this day and age an employer such as Google would allow such groups to exist, and call them “inclusive”.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve often wondered the same thing myself. In fact, I recently blogged about something similar, only it was a group for Hispanic heritage: http://cparker.livejournal.com/132405.html The fact that it’s Google doing it this time shocks me even more. In my mind, Google has always been a progressive company. I’d think that Google, of all companies, would have shed this type of behavior already.
If we truly want to make racism history, we shouldn’t be keeping it on life support with exclusive groups like this.
December 26th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I agree. These sorts of groups seem to create the opposite effect of their primary goal. I will continue to believe we are beyond the need for groups like this. Maybe the Congress should do the same and abolish their exclusive groups as well.
December 27th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I have to concur as well. I almost find this offensive, the entire idea of it is patently nonconstructive to the concept. “Let’s praise them for making a group based on exclusivity by race.” I can’t believe this made the google blog.
December 29th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Well, I don’t believe it’s racist unless the company is forcing people to join them or they are limited to joining only those specific groups. It sounds to me like they are employee created and bring together people who can mutually support each other. Do you feel that the people who join the groups are racist? Or is Google racist for allowing them to form such groups? Should they have to ignore who they are? If I join a group of people who like to knit and my workplace, and we get together for knitting, fellowship and service projects, is that different? I think this sounds like a healthy development. Race (ethnic identity, gender, whatever) is acknowledged as a vital part of a person’s identity, without being a factor in those people being treated differently.
December 29th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
While I understand the point behind this group and Google’s openness in allowing it to exist, one has to wonder whether a similar “White Googlers Network” would be allowed to exist. My first guess would be that it would be shut down faster than the beat of a hummingbird’s wings. I’m curious to know - and a google and google scholar search doesn’t turn up anything - why social groups exclusively for minorities have so much more acceptance than those exclusively for the majority. For example, how many single-sex colleges do you know that are all male?
January 12th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Comparing this to knitting is disingenuous to say the least. You actively have to want to knit to take part in a group. That is something that you can consciously choose to be in. To be in once of these “minority groups” you have to be born as minority. I don’t think any of us are under any illusions that we have any choice as to what we are born as, so this is pointless. It is like me joining a group called “people named Phil by their parents”.
Unless of course, there is something untoward in the workplace that means minorities feel the need to join such a group for support - that is the only purpose I can think of for such a group.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:13 am
I agree… Knitting is something you choose to take part in. I happen to be a white male, and if I were to come up with a group that is specifically for white people (i.e. the “White Googler’s Network”), firstly nobody would join it for fear of being un-PC, and secondly I’m sure the company would find a way to squash it.
Reminds me of when a group of College Republicans at a school (can’t remember which) got negative press for promoting a scholarship for white males on their campus. I applaud them for such a ballsy move … if one group of people can get special opportunities, why not the next?