Call: 0123456789 | Email:

Pioneers of Diversity in the History of Diversity History


The teaching of diversity is a solution for many businesses. In the European Union, small and medium-sized enterprises are offered to develop their capacity to involve different states of the Union and cultures. The Australian Government uses diversity education to abolish discrimination against the Aborigine and the islanders. Asia considers it useful to increase productivity at multinational companies and address the historical challenges of reaching harmony between Muslims and Hindu citizens. South Africa has implemented diversity education to adjust the removal of the Apartheid system. The United States has been offering diversity education for decades, although its logic has changed over time.

This article is limited to characterizing the history of diversity education in the United States. The history of Diversity in other countries and continents will be about future issues.

Diversity Training and education in the United States

Many organizations, communities, military sectors and higher education institutions in the United States have been a form of diversity education since the 1960s. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, businesses used diversity training to prevent and resolve civil law. Many organizations today assume that diversity awareness can increase productivity and innovation in an increasingly diverse work environment. Due to variety and variety of uses, diversity training has evolved over the last decades.

Diversity education is basically a message to the Americans of European descent about the civil rights movement and violent demonstrations of activists that blacks are no longer silent about their treatment of citizens. Social change was the foundation for education to create a more stable society, focusing primarily on increasing sensitivity to racial differences and raising awareness of racial differences.

White and Black Americans have become popular educational methods of meeting groups for honest and emotional debates about racial relationships. Military soldiers meet with groups that may be the largest diversification education experiments (Day, 1983). Many facilitators saw the "meeting" of racial groups involved in race training successful when at least one white US admitted racist and tearful of racial discrimination and white supremacy.

the facilitators considered it fundamental to illustrate participants for both racial relationships and to model racist racial co-operation. The facilitators were typically men and the White facilitator was most appreciated if he could openly demonstrate his feelings during his journey to discover deep-rooted racism.

Facilitators saw their work as a way of achieving equality in a world that historically suppressed those with less social, political and economic strength. In the diversity approach, white Americans who raised objections or denied racism were frequent. The goal was to increase the American sensitivity of whites to the effects of racial inequality.

White US participants reacted in three ways to confronting sensitivity. A group of whites found the obstacles to racial conditions more insightful because they were in the hot meeting during the encounters. Another group resisted racial harmony as they fought against accepting the label of facilitators for racists. It was a third group that the military called "fanatics." These individuals spoke against any form of racial injustice after training. RD Day (1985) on Military Diversity Education shows that the Department of Minority Relationships at the Department of Defense reduced the number of training hours and reduced the use of "hot seats" techniques based on negative assessments,. Corporate Diversity Training has also changed since the federal government has limited the affirmative action laws.

While in the 70s and 80s, gender diversity education began to emerge, the diversity education in the United States expanded in the 1990s to include other groups of identities. Different pioneers argue that the broader view of diversity has "diluted" the focus on the race so much that they no longer dealt with the training seriously. They assume that focusing on prejudices against other groups does not activate visceral responses to individuals, organizations, and society as a whole to address the issue of fundamental discrimination.

Recent research shows that people in the United States have more negative reactions to homosexual or lesbian people (Devine & Monteith, 1993). Many Americans seem to share homosexual and lesbian attitudes, mainly based on religious beliefs. However, the attitude towards homosexuals and lesbians is becoming more positive, as the success of the Brokeback Mountain film shows, for the introduction of two cowboy lovers and legislation on the protection of their laws (Vaughn, 2002).

Multiculturalism refers to the inclusion of the full range of identity groups in education. The goal is to take into account all the different ways people identify as cultural beings. This viewpoint has, to this day, been the most widespread approach to diversity education. Involvement of other identity groups poses challenges to focusing on black differentiation and effectively covering the many different identity groups.

In a sector of diversity activity, the current focus of training white privileges provides the place for racism in the education of diversity. The teaching of white privileges forces white people to consider the benefits that they individually enjoy as members of a racial group with the most social, political and economic power.

While white privileges, multiculturalism and racism work are all important, professionals need to keep in mind that organizations are diverse in diversity education needs. Determining compliance with these requirements requires that the trainer has critical thinking skills and capabilities to facilitate issues beyond his or her cultural experience. An appropriately diverse practitioner can determine whether the racial education mode is the right intervention if the gender orientation is needed, the treatment of homophobia, and so on.

Gender differences, sexual orientation, American identity, latino empowerment, white privileges, etc. provide a rich environment for understanding the complexity of American diversity. Today's experienced diversification trainer has the expertise to create a multicultural approach to facilitation and training, and he or she handles knowledge of the circle of identity groups. For each identity group, the attention it deserves is of no importance.

The reality of global mobilization requires a broader view of diversity as it increasingly focuses on international audiences. For example, the use of the African American label is complicated by African and Black Africans immigrating to the United States. The organization may have employees from former Yugoslavia, refugees from Somalia, guest workers from India, and limited English speaking people – to name only a few of the modern diversity challenges. Religious diversity accompanies globalism, which is also part of modern diversity education.

It is likely that the complexity of the identity group requires versatile professionals such as Judith Katz to focus on promoting inclusive organizations. The goal is to eliminate productivity for all members of the organization, especially the historically excluded group members.

Another recent change is emphasizing the diversity education, not the diversity training. While one term has been discussed regularly over the other, it means a valuable exchange of ideas. From the author's point of view, the term "diversity education" extends the view on the diversity programs that organizations deal with and how they handle the often negative connotation diversity training. Perhaps more importantly, this term allows us to differentiate between diversity training and other programmatic activities between diversity practices.

In addition, diversity expertise has changed over time, partly reflecting changing needs and increasing knowledge of the area. The description of the profession before the rise of the main Diversity Officer tells a lot about how diversity practitioners look like consultants. Versatile Pioneers

Employing a wide range of professionals at organizations who understand that diversity is capital and takes advantage of long-term commitment to productivity. The Diversity Organizer is responsible for a diversity initiative within the organization. Some are the main diversification officer or the vice president of diversity, while others are the diversity coordinators or the chairmen of the government committee. Regardless of what they call, these positions are increasingly widespread in organizations. Not long ago, a human resource officer would hire a consultant or a trainer to handle diversity with sensitivity-conscious training as the solution is expected.

The diversity of pioneers has created a foundation for the emergence of leaders of today's diversity. The pioneer of diversity is someone who has been involved in the profession for over 20 years, including those who have been in-house or advisory. In-house professionals are activists of diversity, integration and equity. This article focuses on external consultants and trainers.

Here is a list of diversity pioneers in the United States:

o Elsie Cross

o Price Cobb

o Sybil Evans O John Fernandez

o Lee Gardenswartz

o Lewis Griggs

O Huber

or Judith Katz

or Frances Kendall

or Fred Miller

o Patricia Pápa [19659003] or Ann Rowe

or Donna Springer

o Roosevelt Thomas

Diversity Training University international students have been collecting data for a few years. The editorial staff drew the attention of the author to his career in teaching and advising in diversity in 1986. His initial reaction was intimidated by the idea of ​​listing his name in such a highly regarded pioneer group.

the pioneers have received specialization in business. Louis Griggs is a Stanford MBA. Judith Katz received a closer background from the Massachusetts University PhD degree focusing on racial relationships. He studied at Oklahoma Human Relations Program for ten years before becoming a full-time advisor to the business sector

The author is a cultural-cognitive psychologist at the University of San Diego, California. After receiving his doctorate in 1986, he has studied cultural competence for nearly two decades. Every diversion pioneer should know how to navigate the landfill sites in diversity work while acting as a consultant, instructor and trainer.

What the pioneers lacked in the credentials inherent in the Diversity profession have done more to upset the shock and bruising in the ditches of work … Judit Katz is a student activist for social justice at the end of the 1960s. Judith began his diversity profession focusing on white American racism. By the mid-1980s he was a member of The Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group. Positive action was at its height, and many companies used independent diversity practitioners to provide programs that would help increase the number of African Americans and women workers. Some organizations have applied diversity training to protect civil rights in this period. According to Judith, "mainly focused on the focus of Latin, Asian, sexual orientation, age or people with disabilities" focused primarily on black and white racial issues and sexism. "

Judith also noticed that the business case study at the time emphasized the diversity as the right thing, not as a business imperative. People expect to fit in with existing organizational culture. It was difficult at the time to make a real organizational change. "The most important change is that diversity is now accepted as a key business leader, not for the diversity of diversity." This was a departure from a common confrontation approach in the early stages of the educational history of diversity. According to Judith, "for some, diversity concerns compliance (concerns of legal affairs) with others to raise awareness of individual diversity, the confrontational approach to increasing individual awareness has not, in the long run, created a system change, but systems, structures and processes often Judith notes that many organizations are still approaching diversity from compliance, but more and more organizational leaders are moving beyond "if diversity is not a business game today. "

Judith is concerned about the challenges that continue to face diversity practitioners and key diversity officials.

o Drivers of diversity must struggle with organizational leaders to take on the full weight of the many initiatives Diversity leaders are too much to accept

o They are too burdensome in society, work becomes more effective

o expect their partners to contribute to further stress among the various parts of the organization

o working alone and is expected to be uniquely They have a very difficult job [19659003] o They have a great political role to play in gaining their work and legal protection of the organization.

The result is that the diversity initiative is a very difficult, demanding and solitary work from Judith's point of view. 003] Judith believes that leaders of organizations should "raise their expectations" about the expectations of the diversity initiative. This is the best way to support the Diversity Officer. A good example is to make people accountable to the organization for inclusion, especially for leaders and supervisors. Linking bonuses and equity fees to clarifying diversity and reception indicators is rarely a serious concern for the fifty most diverse companies. But this obviously increases the expectations and performance principles.

Thanks to Judith, Diversity Consultants and Educators have a role to play. The author believes that he is one of the few who can successfully engage business leaders in serious discussions on organizational inclusion. Diversity is an expression that is used today in diversity and inclusion – thanks to Lewis Griggs. When he joined the words in the early 1980s, his clients thought he was "too sensitive". There was no positive action or equal employment opportunity. An African-American male colleague told him that terminology was really dangerous, because White America refused to appreciate people for differences. But luckily, we had a vision for us.

Lewis is a European American who has come to diversity with his own unique growth experiences. Griggs says, "During the international training at the beginning of the '80s, I realized that people from other countries had more knowledge about me than they did in America than I was referring to, meaning what the other was" ethnocentric ". Griggs thought that if he was ethnocentric about people from other countries, "would I be ethnocentric here in the United States?" Griggs continued to break the ground. Develop a series of evaluation diversity videos. He then developed the first online training programs. The annual diversity conference offered by the Human Resource Management Society was created by Lewis. Thanks to Lewis, more and more organizations take the idea of ​​appreciating the differences. In the 1980s, the higher education sector began to offer diversity courses in general education curricula. . For example, Stanford University and Fullerton California State University sought to offer compulsory cultural diversity to meet the general educational requirements. Among the academics, he had a major debate as to whether the canon needed defense to accommodate diversity courses.

The author found himself in the middle of cultural wars as a new assistant professor with a joint meeting on ethnic studies and psychology. Its training facilitated the integration of cultural differences into developmental, social and cognitive psychology courses. He has taught general mandatory general education courses. The first American and politically conservative students in Europe strongly resisted the necessary courses.

Students have been less resistant to integrated course courses over the years, but many people continue to struggle with the material due to difficulties in accepting different values ​​and beliefs.

The inclusion of historically excluded group members, especially college students, is concentrated on most universities. No one would listen seriously to the idea of ​​creating a host organization before increasing the number of colorful students. The attitude was "getting more colorful students and worrying about how to keep them later." Retention and termination of historically excluded students has become a serious problem as the number of recruits has increased.

The author has also been incredibly successful in attracting the students of the historically excluded groups and creating a receptive environment, just to make managerial changes undermine these profits and the economic environment. The learnable lesson is that sustainable diversity and inclusion initiatives require a continuous commitment to overcome all the constraints that can lead to old business practices (Fenn, J. & Goforth-Irving, C., 2005). Diversity and inclusion should, for example, be part of each new initiative in order to protect the organization from reintegration to earlier integration phases.

Because of the economic, political and global changes of the old problems, pioneers have seen a lot of impact on the road. This short story suggests that their mere determination and commitment has created an invaluable value from which we can all draw meaningful lessons. This magazine provides a solution based on the pioneers' foundation to better address the impact of unavoidable environmental changes with variation

Have any Question or Comment?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *