Bias is one of those problems that can be either obvious and fixable or illusive and undiagnosable. I know, for example, a manufacturing company which recently discovered that some of its employees are members of the Ku Klux Klan. By contrast, there’s the CEO who suspects that bias is keeping her gay employees from moving up in the company but she can’t quite identify where the problem lies. Who is in bigger trouble? Clearly the CEO whose problem is most difficult to spot.

I call this kind of subtle bias “Guerilla Bias.”™ Like “guerilla warfare” in which the enemy hides behind beautiful foliage, “Guerilla Bias.”™ is difficult to see because it lies concealed in the foliage of what we think of as good intentions, kind words, and so-called thoughtful acts. “Guerilla Bias”™ is dangerous because it is hidden. It is also dangerous because it is based on the unconscious premise that women, minorities, the disabled, and those who are outside the so-called “majority” population are somehow fragile, quick to explode, or in need of special treatment.

Managers can be particularly guilty of this type of “Guerilla Bias.”™ It shows up in their reluctance — read: “fear” — to provide negative, constructive feedback to minorities and women. Take, for example, the case of Susan, a young Filipina at a Jersey City hospital. She looked at me with complete bewilderment as I struggled to figure out why she and the other Filipinas on her floor were not performing as well as non-Filipino nurses. Practically in tears, she said, “Nobody ever tells us what we are doing wrong.” Susan, like millions of other potentially valuable employees, will never be able to move up in the organization and is clearly lost to an industry which is ever-hungry for qualified, dedicated health care professionals. Without feedback and carefully delineated goals, productivity suffers and un-coached employees like Susan begin to “measure down” to management’s expectations.

Not only are valuable employees left behind, but lack of appropriate feedback has other costs as well. For example, if a supervisor fails to provide needed feedback to a minority or female employee, fellow team members are apt to perceive of that person as being coddled or held to a lower standard thus creating fertile ground for feelings of racism or sexism.

Another type of “Guerilla Bias”™ involves our old friend political correctness. Political correctness makes sense — to a point. There was a time for speech reform. An important message, for example, was sent when we called a halt to the universal use of the pronoun “he.” However, what started out as a reasonable adjustment has mutated into a way to conceal bias. Too many of us carefully choose the best politically correct term, phrasing, or even point of view because that gives us the illusion that we have no biases. In fact, the excessive use of political correctness can mask, even from ourselves, the biases that we have.

Anyone, from any group, of either gender, or of any color can be guilty of “Guerilla Bias.”™ The first step to defeating it is to be honest with ourselves about how we really feel about other groups. Having a bias is not the end of the world; the only shame involved is if we make no effort to improve. The second step is to expose ourselves to the very people who make us uncomfortable. This exposure, along with the knowledge we gain from it, will gradually diffuse the fear and eventually weaken even our most deeply hidden biases.

Originally posted on Dr. Thiederman’s site: Opening Gateways to Understanding

Sondra Thiederman is a speaker and author on diversity, bias-reduction, and cross-cultural issues. She is the author of Making Diversity Work: Seven Steps for Defeating Bias in the Workplace (Chicago: Dearborn Press, 2003) which is available at her web site or at www.Amazon.com. She can be contacted at:

Sondra Thiederman, Ph.D.
Cross-Cultural Communications
4585 48th Street
San Diego, CA 92115
Phones: 619-583-4478 / 800-858-4478
Fax: 619-583-0304
www.Thiederman.com / STPhD@Thiederman.com

For many people, the terms “gender” and “sex” are interchangeable. This idea has become so common, particularly in western societies, that it is rarely questioned. Yet biological sex and gender are different; gender is not inherently connected to one’s physical anatomy.

Sex is biological and includes physical attributes such as sex chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, internal reproductive structures, and external genitalia. At birth, it is used to identify individuals as male or female.  Gender on the other hand is far more complicated. Along with one’s physical traits, it is the complex interrelationship between those traits and one’s internal sense of self as male, female, both or neither as well as one’s outward presentations and behaviors related to that perception.

The Gender Spectrum

Western culture has come to view gender as a binary concept, with two rigidly fixed options: male or female.  When a child is born, a quick glance between the legs determines the gender label that the child will carry for life. But even if gender is to be restricted to basic biology, a binary concept still fails to capture the rich variation observed. Rather than just two distinct boxes, biological gender occurs across a continuum of possibilities. This spectrum of anatomical variations by itself should be enough to disregard the simplistic notion of only two genders.

But beyond anatomy, there are multiple domains defining gender. In turn, these domains can be independently characterized across a range of possibilities.  Instead of the static, binary model produced through a solely physical understanding of gender, a far more rich texture of biology, gender expression, and gender identity intersect in multidimensional array of possibilities. Quite simply, the gender spectrum represents a more nuanced, and ultimately truly authentic model of human gender.

Falling Into Line

Gender is all around us. It is actually taught to us, from the moment we are born. Gender expectations and messages bombard us constantly. Upbringing, culture, peers, community, media, and religion, are some of the many influences that shape our understanding of this core aspect of identity. How you learned and interacted with gender as a young child directly influences how you view the world today. Gendered interaction between parent and child begin as soon as the sex of the baby is known. In short, gender is a socially constructed concept.

Like other social constructs, gender is closely monitored by society. Practically everything in society is assigned a gender—toys, colors, clothes and behaviors are some of the more obvious examples. Through a combination of social conditioning and personal preference, by age three most children prefer activities and exhibit behaviors typically associated with their sex. Accepted social gender roles and expectations are so entrenched in our culture that most people cannot imagine any other way. As a result, individuals fitting neatly into these expectations rarely if ever question what gender really means. They have never had to, because the system has worked for them.

About Gender Variance

Gender variance is when a person’s preferences and self-expression fall outside commonly understood gender norms. Gender variance is a normal part of human expression, documented across cultures and recorded history. Non-binary gender diversity exists throughout the world, documented by countless historians and anthropologists. Examples of individuals living comfortably outside of typical male/female identities are found in every region of the globe. The calabai, andcalalai of Indonesia, two-spirit Native Americans, and the hijra of India all represent more complex understandings of gender than the simplistic model seen in the west.

Further, what might be considered gender variant in one period of history may become gender normative in another. One need only examine trends related to men wearing earrings or women sporting tattoos to quickly see the malleability of social expectations about gender. Even the seemingly intractable “pink is for girls, blue is for boys” notions are relatively new. While there is some debate about the reasons why they reversed, what is well documented is that until the 1950s, pink was seen as a more decided and stronger color, and thus more suitable for a boy, while blue, viewed more delicate and dainty, was commonly worn by girls.

Gender Terminology

Given the complexity of gender, it is not surprising that an increasing number of terms and phrases are developing to describe it. Below are some of the key terms you might encounter:

Biological/Anatomical Sex. The physical structure of one’s reproductive organs that is used to assign sex at birth. Biological sex is determined by chromosomes (XX for females; XY for males); hormones (estrogen/progesterone for females, testosterone for males); and internal and external genitalia (vulva, clitoris, vagina for assigned females, penis and testicles for assigned males). Given the potential variation in all of these, biological sex must be seen as a spectrum or range of possibilities rather than a binary set of two options.

Gender Identity. One’s innermost concept of self as male or female or both or neither—how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. One’s gender identity can be the same or different than the sex assigned at birth. Individuals are conscious of this between the ages 18 months and 3 years. Most people develop a gender identity that matches their biological sex. For some, however, their gender identity is different from their biological or assigned sex. Some of these individuals choose to socially, hormonally and/or surgically change their sex to more fully match their gender identity.

Gender Expression. Refers to the ways in which people externally communicate their gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, haircut, voice, and other forms of presentation. Gender expression also works the other way as people assign gender to others based on their appearance, mannerisms, and other gendered characteristics. Sometimes, transgender people seek to match their physical expression with their gender identity, rather than their birth-assigned sex. Gender expression should not be viewed as an indication of sexual orientation.

Gender Role. This is the set of roles, activities, expectations and behaviors assigned to females and males by society. Our culture recognizes two basic gender roles: Masculine (having the qualities attributed to males) and feminine (having the qualities attributed to females). People who step out of their socially assigned gender roles are sometimes referred to as transgender. Other cultures have three or more gender roles.

Transgender. Sometimes used as an umbrella to describe anyone whose identity or behavior falls outside of stereotypical gender norms. More narrowly defined, it refers to an individual whose gender identity does not match their assigned birth gender. Being transgender does not imply any specific sexual orientation (attraction to people of a specific gender.) Therefore, transgender people may additionally identify as straight, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Sexual Orientation. Term that refers to being romantically or sexually attracted to people of a specific gender. Our sexual orientation and our gender identity are separate, distinct parts of our overall identity. Although a child may not yet be aware of their sexual orientation, they usually have a strong sense of their gender identity.

Gender Normative/Cisgender. Refers to people whose sex assignment at birth corresponds to their gender identity and expression.

Gender Fluidity. Gender fluidity conveys a wider, more flexible range of gender expression, with interests and behaviors that may even change from day to day. Gender fluid children do not feel confined by restrictive boundaries of stereotypical expectations of girls or boys. In other words, a child may feel they are a girl some days and a boy on others, or possibly feel that neither term describes them accurately.

Reprinted from: Gender Spectrum

Latinos are the fastest growing “minority” group in the United States. Their population increased 107 percent from 1998 to 2008, compared with 14 percent for the non-Latino population and 22 percent for the total population. Only Mexico has a Latino population larger than the United States. The buying power of Latinos in the United States, a $1 trillion in 2010, is larger than the entire economies of all but 14 countries in the world. It’s projected to increase 50 percent by 2015, almost double the 27 percent national projected growth rate.

 
Courtesy of: Diversity Inc.

Is your company able to deal with religious bias, such as the current anti-Muslim rhetoric? Progressive companies with clearly stated values that hold people accountable for their actions offer valuable lessons. Get advice from companies such as IBM and American Express about how they handle these situations, and how employee-resource groups in particular can help them create inclusive workplaces.

Companies such as IBM Corp., No. 7 in The 2011 DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity^®, and American Express, No. 13, say that sensitivity, training and flexibility can go a long way in creating a culture of inclusion and religious accommodation. In an article on DiversityInc.com, Kerrie Peraino, senior vice president, international human resources and global employee relations at American Express, discussed the importance of aligning employee-resource groups with corporate values.

“Before you plant any seed, you need a culture where people are encouraged to work together and respect one another,” Peraino said. “There must be an environment where personal accountability and integrity permeate through every action and transaction. When you start with a work culture that is inquisitive and [has] values alignment, there’s more room for various beliefs to be expressed and constructively contribute to employee and business success.”

So how do you ensure your workplace is inclusive for everyone, including those of minority religious faiths? What steps should employers take to steer their organizations toward a healthier, more diverse workplace?

• Deep-rooted organizational values that respect customers, communities and employees are essential to an inclusive culture and a successful diversity initiative.

The companies that demonstrate long-term diversity success, such as IBM, for example, have intrinsic, strong moral codes that are at the backbone of every business decision they make.

“If you think about IBM’s values, at the end, it comes down to a single word in my mind, and that’s ‘relationships,’” says Ron Glover, vice president, diversity and workforce programs, human resources. “We do things that really bring value to and enable people and communities around the world to be successful and to take on the toughest problems they have. Then we look at trust and personal responsibility. All of those come down to a notion of enabling us to build relationships. That work formed a basis in our work in diversity as a way to bring different voices to the table and to build an environment within our company first and then across the organizations around the world.”

• Companies that value diversity and inclusion often have strong employee-resource groups that are encouraged to cross-collaborate and to focus on education, awareness and inclusion.

American Express has a total of 14 ERGs, including three faith-based networks: SALT, the Christian network; CHAI, the Jewish network; and PEACE, the Muslim network. The groups are open to everyone and have senior-level sponsors.

“Although religious networks may seem complicated, at American Express, they’ve provided a very productive outlet for employees to fully engage at work, to learn more about themselves and each other and to build bridges to understanding,” Peraino said.

Twenty-eight percent of The 2011 DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity report having faith-based ERGs, up from 10 percent in 2006.

A number of DiversityInc Top 50 companies have also started Middle East/North African ERGs, including Booz Allen Hamilton, No. 32; Cummins, No. 18; Eli Lilly, No. 39; Ford Motor Co., No. 47; General Mills, No. 27;Johnson & Johnson, No. 6; and Wells Fargo, No. 40.

• Strong mentoring programs should have a cross-cultural component.

Almost all DiversityInc Top 50 companies encourage participants to findmentors who are both from their group (whether that’s defined by race, ethnicity, religion, age, orientation or ability) and not from their group. Employee-resource groups are often used to give employees access to mentors within their own groups and across groups. These mentoring programs must have structure, formal follow-up and measurable results.

• Don’t just deliver the employee handbook and walk away. Continuously communicate. Make sure everyone is clear on your HR policies, and encourage discussion.

“Religious policies should also be backed up with training,” said Dr. Georgette F. Bennett, president of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, in an article for DiversityInc. “An organization cannot assume that its policies and rationales are understood the same way by every employee, so an orientation of clear do’s and don’ts with periodic follow-up training ensures all employees are on the same page. This way, if an employee violates company policy, managers have clear guidelines upon which to fall back. When this happens, it also gives the employer an opportunity to see whether its policies or training protocol were unclear, while further teaching the employee about the organization’s expectations.”

Other steps organizations can take to create an inclusive workplace culture:

• Schedule sensitively.

Keep a calendar of religious holidays handy, and be sure it’s available to managers and supervisors, Bennett said. When scheduling important meetings or celebrations, make sure they’re during a time when everyone necessary can attend.

• Handle the holidays.

Official holidays in the United States are predominantly Christian, often forcing employees of other faiths to use vacation days to observe their holy days, she said. Implement flexible holiday policies such as holiday-swapping or floating personal days to give all employees an equal opportunity to observe.

Overheard while waiting for an elevator: An executive was invited to talk to some ninth-graders. He spoke of the journey through various jobs that built a successful business career. As he concluded his remarks, he opened up for questions. The students seemed a bit reluctant to speak. So he primed the discussion by saying, “Think about the future and tell me what you see yourself doing once you get your college degree.”

The ensuing silence was getting uncomfortable for the executive. In due course, the silence was broken by a student who said, “It’s simple. I’ll be doing what everyone else in this room will be doing … digging out from the hole your generation has put us in.” Others in the class nodded their heads in agreement.

The executive said, “How could they be so rude?” At this point his narrative was interrupted by the arrival of the elevator. The conversation picked up as the executive and his colleagues left the elevator. I heard no further details as they went in a different direction than I did.

The executive was clearly surprised and annoyed. But would he have been had he known about the latest research on generational attitudes? He still might not have appreciated the in-your-face attitude shown by the student, but he might have understood what was going on a bit better.

Valuing differing points of view is a part of the diversity discussion that needs to receive more emphasis. The mindset that accepts learning from differing viewpoints as a normal part of life is what is needed in these tumultuous times.

I’ve been in conversations where businesspeople have expressed the thought that views of young people are not to be taken all that seriously as they are still maturing and will, ultimately, change their minds about things many times. My response is that this may well be, but we in business and society will pay a price for this dismissive attitude in terms of a potentially disengaged, suspicious workforce that will not be as productive as it could be.

A New Generation Approaching

You may ask: “Aren’t these ninth-graders in the anecdote just the youngest of Generation Y?” The answer is: not really. There is a now successor generation to Gen Y, and they’ve had some very different life experiences. Tamara Erickson in her book “What’s Next Gen X?” has dubbed them the re-generation, and this is the term that will be used here.

I like this nomenclature because this successor generation will likely be about re-evaluating, re-thinking and re-generating what they will be inheriting. They are aware of the economic crisis and how it affects them. They have firsthand knowledge of foreclosures and losing jobs and homes. They have lived most, if not all, of their lives under terrorist alerts, financial concerns and now environmental disasters. As a consequence, re-gen will most likely be quite pragmatic, cautious and very concerned with stewardship of resources. They will be seeking a better way in all aspects of life. However, there also may be another “re” in store for us and that may be represented in the words “resentment of” or resenting the position they perceive that they’ve been put in.

If there was a mantra for re-gen, it might be: “Work, work and work some more. We don’t have much choice. It’s not as clear as it was for previous generations in the United States that we’re going to have as good—much less better—a life than they did. We don’t appreciate the hole that others have put us in. We’ve got to learn to cooperate, not just compete, all the time. Adults, are you listening?”

Selected Survey Results

To begin tracking the attitudes of these re-gen young people, I teamed up with Node Research to ask a series of questions about their thoughts on the future, who they view as valued sources of information and their political views. The survey was conducted in April. Results are based on Internet surveys with a nationally representative sample of 500 10- to 24-year-old males and females from different racial/ethnic groups (Black, Latino, Asian and white). For ease of analysis, the group was subdivided into 10- to 17-year-olds (re-gen) and 18- to 24-year-olds (Gen Y). I will focus on re-gen unless there is a notable difference between re-gen and Gen Y.

We asked the young people to rate statements on a scale of strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree and don’t know/need more information. Here are highlights.

Thoughts About the Future

“Because of the current financial crisis, I believe that ultimately I will not do as well financially as my parents have done.”

Forty-one percent of re-gens agree with this statement; 48 percent disagree; 11 percent don’t know/need more information. The only gender difference worth noting is that re-gen boys are slightly more optimistic than re-gen girls (52 percent of boys selected disagree versus 44 percent of the girls).

There are some ethnic differences: Latinos had the highest agreement percentages at 51 percent (i.e., least optimistic). The others are clustered near the average of 41 percent.

Taking a very broad look, it appears that re-gen is more or less equally divided between pessimists and optimists.

To give balance to the questions about the future, we asked the following:

“Financial crises come and go. I believe that ultimately I will do as well as, if not better than, my parents financially.”

Asked this way, the responses are more positive, with 67 percent agreeing, 23 percent disagreeing and 10 percent choosing don’t know/need more information.

Worth noting is that Asians (87 percent), Blacks (75 percent) and Latinos (86 percent) are well above their white counterparts (54 percent) in being positive about their futures. Surprisingly, the population’s majority group appears least positive about its future.

What do these seemingly conflicting results tell us? Without further research and analysis, it is difficult to know what is meant. It may show that where there is optimism, it is tentative. But we know for sure that, however we cut the results, white re-gens are the least optimistic, and this is a concern.

Valued Sources of Advice

We also wanted to understand who these young people depended upon to ask questions about the world around them. We asked respondents to rank-order eight sources of advice according to their value. Here is the ranking, from most valuable to least:

• Parents/care providers
• Other family members/adult friends
• Teachers
• Colleagues (classmates, coworkers, etc.)
• TV news people
• Internet (blogs et. al.)
• Print publications
• Religious leaders

Respondents cite parents/caregivers as No. 1 in value 58 percent of the time. All the other choices range between 5 percent and 8 percent in the percentage of times each was cited as No. 1 in value. In other words, despite the appearances to the contrary, youth want parents to engage them in discussion, and they value it highly. And if you are an adult friend, teacher, work colleague or religious leader, you are still valued as No. 1 about 24 percent of the time.

The media is well down the list of valued sources, but we didn’t know that at the time we developed the questions for the survey. Curious to gather perceptions of youth on media, we did so by asking them to respond to a statement I have heard from some young people:

“There is no real discussion of issues on TV, just people yelling at each other.”

The re-gen response is different from that of Gen Y. Forty-three percent of re-gen agree with the statement; 45 percent disagree; 12 percent chose “don’t know/need more information.” In contrast, 54 percent of Gen Y agree, while 36 percent disagree, with 10 percent selecting “don’t know/need more information.” This response fits with a pattern in some other research we’ve done that shows the closer youth get to graduating high school and getting out into the world, the more skeptical they appear to become.

Further evidence supporting this increasing skepticism is the fact that 62 percent of Gen Y boys agree with the survey statement versus only 41 percent of re-gen boys. Interestingly, there is no real difference between the views of Gen Y and re-gen girls (47 percent versus 46 percent).

Much more work needs to be done on media skepticism, but it is reasonable to conclude that about half of our youth (between the ages of 10 and 24) don’t see television as promoting responsible discussion of important issues.

Incipient Political Views

Just as we sought to collect views on the media, we added a survey statement concerning the Obama administration and how it is viewed by Gen Y and re-gen. On a four-point scale, ranging from very optimistic, somewhat optimistic, not very optimistic and not at all optimistic, this is the statement posed and the responses:

“How optimistic are you that President Obama and his administration will be able to solve the current economic problems?”

Sixty-one percent of re-gen is very/somewhat optimistic, while 39 percent is not very/not at all optimistic. The results for Gen Y are almost identical: 60 percent are very/somewhat optimistic and 40 percent are not very/not at all optimistic.

Re-gen boys are slightly more optimistic (64 percent) than re-gen girls (56 percent). The Gen Y results by gender are virtually the same: 63 percent of boys are slightly more optimistic versus 57 percent of girls.

But there are major differences among the four racial/ethnic groups. Again, white youth are far less optimistic than the other racial/ethnic groups: 51 percent of whites are very/somewhat optimistic and 49 percent are not very/not at all optimistic. By contrast, 81 percent of Blacks, 74 percent of Latinos and 70 percent of Asians are very/somewhat optimistic.

Where Does This Leave Us?

I hope that some of these findings will be surprising enough that researchers will start studying re-gens in earnest. The optimism-level gap between white and Asian, Black and Latino youth is worth immediate attention. Adults need to actively communicate with young people. However, a condescending manner that doesn’t appear to value their opinions and concerns is not the ticket.

Young people want an adult they respect to explain what’s going on and help them make sense of the world. In the absence of this kind of transparency, they are going to believe the worst. Let’s treat generational differences with respect and engage youth in discussions where they feel they are being heard.

Who knows? We might learn something too!

W. Stanton Smith is an author, featured speaker and recognized expert in generational issues in the workplace. Over his career, Smith has held a variety of senior HR positions in public accounting, executive search and the energy business. Smith recently retired from Deloitte LLP (No. 25 on The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity® list) as a principal in human resources after more than 36 years in the business world. He continues his research, writing and speaking on the topic of generational differences. In addition, he is actively working to improve the treatment and care of people with Parkinson’s disease.

To be studied is to be acknowledged, and if you are a Hispanic woman who is either a lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer — or questioning whether you are any of the above — your time has come.

The first research of its kind, “Latina portrait: Latina queer women in Chicago,” was released last week after years of struggling to gain funding for a comprehensive study of a population of women who have flown completely under the radar.

That’s despite the fact that, according to data analyses from the Williams Institute at the UCLA school of Law Census, women com­prise almost 60 percent of all Illinois same-sex couple households, and Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority in the state.

Through a joint project between Mujeres Latinas en Accion, a Latina advocacy organization, and Amigas Latinas, a support agency for lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning Latinas, this study, based on a sample of 300 women, begins to tell us how these women see themselves.

Aside from sharing a Hispanic heritage, 50 percent of respondents identified as lesbian/gay/homosexual; 9 percent as bisexual; 6.5 percent as queer; 4.5 percent as uncertain/questioning, and 10 percent didn’t use any of those labels. In terms of identity, 9.1 percent identified as “butch”; 26 percent as “femme,” and 29.2 percent said they don’t use these types of labels.

More importantly, the study shows us what these women face.

About 48 percent said they feel that there is a lot of racism in the Caucasian lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered community.

Similarly, 17 percent agreed that they are discriminated against because of their race/ethnicity in places specializing in services for predominantly Caucasian LGBT communities. Nine percent of the respondents indicated that racism was currently one of the greatest sources of stress in their lives.

They fare no better in the Latino community: 25 percent agreed that they feel discriminated against because of their sexual orientation in places servicing the Hispanic community and 54 percent of women revealed that they feel that most Latinos are not accepting of LBTQ women.

In terms of domestic violence, 49 percent reported that a female partner had tried to keep them from contact with family and friends. Forty-three percent of Latina LBTQ women reported having been pushed or hit by a partner. And 31 percent stated that a female partner had threatened to kill them.

Women not only stated that they were victims of female-on-female violence, but also admitted that they, too, had perpetuated violence. Forty-five percent said they had punched or hit a female partner and 23 percent had threatened to kill a past or current partner.

“The findings overall were shocking,” co-author Lourdes Torres told me. “We were surprised at the degree to which Latina queers felt discriminated against in the LGBT community and the numbers and nature of the domestic violence experiences.

“But though this is distressing information, there’s no reason to think there’s a pathological link to the community. There’s domestic violence in straight communities, too,” Torres said. “The purpose of releasing this data was to highlight issues so we know where we need to focus our efforts to meet the needs of the community.”

Torres said there is good news, too.

“We found that the vast majority of LBTQ women are out and have support from the people in their communities,” she said. “Part of what this information will allow us to do is learn about people’s positive experiences and develop ways to help others have positive experiences as well.”

Being studied is a double-edged sword. Awareness can lead to acceptance, but also to stereotyping.

Nevertheless, the risks of uncovering previously guarded secrets are far exceeded by the benefits of putting a lifestyle out in the open where it can be celebrated, nurtured and, when necessary, healed.

“That’s wonderful, son. Only you will have to hide your sexual orientation in order to do so, but that’s OK. If you end up dying while serving, since you will now be out of the military, we will let everyone know who you really were.”

This is essentially the stance of the U.S. government with its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

If you believe, like I do, and as current science tells us, that one’s sexual orientation, like one’s gender, race and eye color, is a genetically determined part of who we are, then you will find this policy outrageous in a civilized enlightened society.

John Rawls, the great 20th century philosopher, has argued that justice is fairness. Justice is giving each his or her due. Can we rationally say it is just and fair to have people serve their country, perhaps die in the process, not be able to be proud of who they are and be forced to hide their identities?

Surely, any argument that uses personal disapproval to legitimize unequal treatment cannot stand, and such bigotry should not be enforced by a government whose founding documents state that “all men are created equal,” and all people have the right to “the pursuit of happiness.”

An analogy might be as follows: “You can serve in the military if you are black, as long as you are fair skinned and no one knows you are black.”

Would we tolerate this?

Arguably, today’s most explicitly targeted groups are Muslims and homosexuals. We already have learned that the belief that white-skinned people are superior to black-skinned people, or a dislike for someone’s color, are not legitimate reasons to legally discriminate. Some of you will remember when blacks were considered “dirty” by whites, deprived of opportunities and presumed guilty in court cases when charges were brought up by a white person.

Bigots ignore rational arguments and rely on their disapproval and dislike to justify ignoring the Constitution and the principle of law.

It is time for citizens to stop and think when the flag of “national security” is waved about whether the suggested course of action is consonant with our American constitutional values. It is time to stop being mean-spirited and abusive to any group of people.

It is time to get rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

It’s that time of year again. Coworkers are adding red and green to their business suits and their desks, others are bringing in baked sweets and bosses are planning the yearly soiree. But what about those in the office who don’t celebrate Christmas? DiversityInc asked experts for advice on how to keep the corporate festivities respectful and fun for all.

Party Etiquette

It’s always nice when your company throws an office-wide get-together before the holidays, but what should they call it so that it’s inclusive to all invited?

“A ‘holiday party’ is an acceptable name for a seasonal event—it could reference Martin Luther King Day or Christmas or any other federal holiday a company recognizes,” says Nancy Di Dia, Boehringer Ingelheim‘s executive director of diversity, inclusion and engagement.

While this may work in some offices, Joyce S. Dubensky, executive vice president and CEO of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, advises a more conservative approach. “Many organizations opt for ‘holiday party,’ which sounds neutral but can still create problems,” she says. “There are religions, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, that don’t celebrate any of the winter holidays. In fact, their faith bars them from observing.”

For advice on how to develop religious cultural competency at work, visit DiversityIncBestPractices.com.

So what’s the solution? “An alternative would be to create a name that’s not specifically holiday-focused, like ’2009 Company X Celebration.’ Because the celebration is not based on the holidays, those who don’t or can’t celebrate any winter holidays are still included,” says Dubensky.

Deck the Halls

You’ve been put in charge of decorating for the big event, so how do you create an environment that makes everyone feel comfortable?

“Keep decorating as seasonal as possible—use terms like ‘Season’s Greetings,’ ‘Looking Forward’ and ‘Best Wishes in the New Year.’ If it stays focused on the new year, it also ties to business goals and the promise of having the opportunity to achieve or exceed goals in a new year,” says Di Dia.

For Dubensky, teamwork and variety are key. She says, “One tactic we recommend is to put together a multi-faith team of employees to help you plan and coordinate the event. That way, you get diversity of views about the kind of party to throw.”

She adds, “Different companies also have different cultures. A multi-faith, seasonal display of Christmas tree, menorah and a Kinara (the holder for Kwanzaa candles) mixed with generic winter-themed decorations may be completely acceptable for one company, while another may opt strictly for seasonal decorations (e.g., snowflakes, flower arrangements with seasonal flowers and berries), a themed party with related decorations (like a ’50s party) or even no decorations at all.”

To Go or Not to Go

If you don’t celebrate these holidays and you feel uncomfortable attending the office party, is it OK to excuse yourself? It’s really up to you, says Di Dia. “Employees have choices in what they choose to attend or participate in at their companies. I believe it’s a very personal choice for individuals to make and the amount of time they decide to stay is applicable to the particular culture. What’s most important is to be sure the person who invited you or host knows you’re attending or unable to attend. These are just professional courtesies and should not change at holiday time,” she says.

Gift-Giving

You love giving gifts to others during this season, even if it’s just a gesture, but how do you give presents to those who don’t share the same faith as you? Dubensky advises to give “joyfully and with a spirit of goodwill,” but make sure you remain respectful. “Of course, any gifts should not involve religious elements that may be experienced as coercive or proselytizing—because that could turn the gift into an unwelcome happening. It is best to avoid gifts with explicit references to your religious beliefs,” she says.

Greetings

It’s nice to send best wishes to coworkers, but what’s the best way to be warm as well as considerate? “Providing personalized holiday greetings is a lovely gesture if you know the faith of the person in question and that they’re celebrating the holiday. If you wish a Happy Hanukkah to a non-practicing Jew, your colleague may feel that you’re assuming too much about how s/he celebrates the holiday—which you are,” says Dubensky.

She adds, “If you do choose to offer personalized holiday greetings, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa and Blessed Eid (if it falls in December) are the appropriate greetings. Many card stores now offer these options during the holiday season.”

Sexual harassment of male worker compounded by company’s stereotyped defense. A recent widower began receiving sexual overtures from a female coworker. He asked her to stop. Instead, she continued and became more overtly graphic and frequent in her propositions. The man repeatedly complained to management. Once, the woman was given a verbal warning, but she continued unabated. Repeated complaints received no action. The male employee suffered resulting psychological stress, his work suffered and he was discharged for lowered performance and “poor attitude.” In the ensuing Title VII suit, the company’s attorneys asserted that “most men would have welcomed the advances” and therefore this was not a hostile environment, which should be recognized under Title VII. The court rejected this argument as a “stereotype.” It was clear the male employee found the advances “unwelcome and abusive.” The employer’s response to the complaint was “ineffectual” in the face of known ongoing harassment. EEOC v. Prospect Airport Services. (9th Cir., 2010)

Insufficient efforts to correct harassment. Black employees were subjected to a hostile environment, much of it created by a coworker known to be a “notorious serial harasser.” The harassment included racist bathroom graffiti, repeated racial slurs, racial jokes and celebration of “James Earl Ray Day.” The company was slow to clean up graffiti, never conducted a serious investigation of complaints and merely gave the main harasser a few slap-on-the-wrist oral warnings. The company knew of this and other racist workplace behaviors for years and took no effective action. The court found that the company did not seriously act to correct a 20-year problem until after the Black employees sued. The court found it could be reasonably concluded that the company “passively waited for complaints, occasionally checked for damage to the bathrooms, but made no efforts to correct the underlying problems.” The company took no initiative and no responsible steps to correct the impact of clearly known harassment. Armstrong v. Whirlpool Corp. (M.D. Tenn., 2010).

“Recommendations” for harasser to take training and counseling was not sufficient action for overt behaviors. A female physical therapist was repeatedly propositioned, kissed and fondled by a male chiropractor in a medical center. The company’s action was to “recommend,” but not require, that the chiropractor take some harassment training and seek counseling. The harassment continued and the therapist quit, and then sued. The court found a lack of the “prompt and effective remedy” required by the law. The appellate court upheld a $100,000 jury award and attorneys’ fees. Sheriff v. Midwest Health Partners PC (8th Cir., 2010).

Disability

ADAAA standards starting to take effect—condition in remission requires accommodation. The ADA Amendments Act was passed in 2009, but only now are cases under the new standards beginning to come to trial. Hoffman v. Carefirst of Fort Wayne, Inc., (N.D. Ind., 2010) was filed by a service technician who had beat renal cancer and been symptom-free for years. The company increased his work hours, requiring overtime. He did the work. Then the company told him of an even more substantial increase in work hours. The employee presented a doctor’s opinion that the greater work, and resulting stress, was detrimental to the cancer and could take it out of remission. The company told him he could either work the increased hours or quit. The employee eventually did quit and then sued under the ADAAA. The company defended by claiming that the employee did not have a disability because he had no present restrictions, no present impairment of any major life activities and needed no accommodation. This seems to match the pre-amendment ADA. However, even under the regular ADA, the company seems to have disregarded the “interactive-process” requirement to at least consider and communicate about any request for accommodation before deciding it is either unreasonable or not required. Under the ADAAA, one does not have to be presently incapacitated; “an impairment in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.” The court found that cancer is clearly a disability. If work duties could create a reactivation or any other issue regarding the disability, the employer has a duty to consider reasonable accommodations.

Administrative Action

Change of terms: “intellectual disabilities” is in; “retardation” is out. The U.S. Senate has mandated a change to delete the term “mental retardation” or “retarded” from all federal law, regulations and publications and replace it with “intellectual disabilities.” The new term covers a broader array of cognitive conditions than just retardation. The reasoning is that the term “retardation” is “anachronistic, insensitive and stigmatizing.”

Bob Gregg, partner in Boardman Law Firm, shares his roundup of diversity-related legal issues. He can be reached at rgregg@boardmanlawfirm.com.