(一)工作场所醒来

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Michael Z. Green
{"title":"(一)工作场所醒来","authors":"Michael Z. Green","doi":"10.59015/wlr.ksjv1288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With heightened expectations for a reckoning in response to the broad support for the Black Lives Matter movement after the senseless murder of George Floyd in 2020, employers explored many options to improve racial understanding through discussions with workers. In rejecting any notions of the existence of structural or systemic discrimination, let alone the need to address the consequences of such discrimination, certain groups have begun to oppose BLM by seeking to diminish any social justice actions. One of those key resistance efforts includes labelling in pejorative terms any employers that pursue anti-racism objectives via social justice statements or internal initiatives as being “woke” workplaces. These groups have also criticized employers who adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion training to help workers address racial differences by arguing these sessions apply divisive Critical Race Theory principles that discriminate against and seek to stigmatize white participants. By using CRT and woke labels as weapons, critics leave employers in the unenviable position of determining how to implement antiracism trainings in an environment of BLM reforms and race discrimination concerns. These all-encompassing anti-anti-racism narratives now force employers to show how their DEI trainings and related initiatives do not discriminate against white employees. This Article offers unique insight for employers who pursue DEI measures to achieve racial progress and asserts they may circumvent antianti-racism narratives by continuing to rely on the litigation reforms and stillpresent empirical results that led to the growth of DEI training practices in the 1990s. Many employers had adopted DEI initiatives as good corporate citizens valuing diversity in human resources as a growth of affirmative action in the 1970s. With legal concerns in the 1990s about huge jury verdicts in discrimination lawsuits and empirical indicators of systemic discrimination, employers embraced more comprehensive racial improvement and training steps via written consent decrees and judicially approved settlements. This Article concludes that awoke employers should adopt broader DEI goals and limit training on entry-level racial awareness given empirical data suggesting this particular approach tends to spark backlash without any resulting diversity improvements. Instead, awoke employers understand that most constituents want them to act and lead responsibly regarding comprehensive DEI measures by going beyond legal protections. Training can focus on managers who may subject a company to employment discrimination liability. Awoke training integrates key follow-ups and correlates to measurable DEI results. Focusing on DEI training alone ignores the more important structural change work.","PeriodicalId":54350,"journal":{"name":"Wisconsin Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"(A)woke Workplaces\",\"authors\":\"Michael Z. Green\",\"doi\":\"10.59015/wlr.ksjv1288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With heightened expectations for a reckoning in response to the broad support for the Black Lives Matter movement after the senseless murder of George Floyd in 2020, employers explored many options to improve racial understanding through discussions with workers. In rejecting any notions of the existence of structural or systemic discrimination, let alone the need to address the consequences of such discrimination, certain groups have begun to oppose BLM by seeking to diminish any social justice actions. One of those key resistance efforts includes labelling in pejorative terms any employers that pursue anti-racism objectives via social justice statements or internal initiatives as being “woke” workplaces. These groups have also criticized employers who adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion training to help workers address racial differences by arguing these sessions apply divisive Critical Race Theory principles that discriminate against and seek to stigmatize white participants. By using CRT and woke labels as weapons, critics leave employers in the unenviable position of determining how to implement antiracism trainings in an environment of BLM reforms and race discrimination concerns. These all-encompassing anti-anti-racism narratives now force employers to show how their DEI trainings and related initiatives do not discriminate against white employees. This Article offers unique insight for employers who pursue DEI measures to achieve racial progress and asserts they may circumvent antianti-racism narratives by continuing to rely on the litigation reforms and stillpresent empirical results that led to the growth of DEI training practices in the 1990s. Many employers had adopted DEI initiatives as good corporate citizens valuing diversity in human resources as a growth of affirmative action in the 1970s. With legal concerns in the 1990s about huge jury verdicts in discrimination lawsuits and empirical indicators of systemic discrimination, employers embraced more comprehensive racial improvement and training steps via written consent decrees and judicially approved settlements. This Article concludes that awoke employers should adopt broader DEI goals and limit training on entry-level racial awareness given empirical data suggesting this particular approach tends to spark backlash without any resulting diversity improvements. Instead, awoke employers understand that most constituents want them to act and lead responsibly regarding comprehensive DEI measures by going beyond legal protections. Training can focus on managers who may subject a company to employment discrimination liability. Awoke training integrates key follow-ups and correlates to measurable DEI results. Focusing on DEI training alone ignores the more important structural change work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wisconsin Law Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wisconsin Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.59015/wlr.ksjv1288\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wisconsin Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59015/wlr.ksjv1288","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在2020年乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)被毫无意义地谋杀后,“黑人的命也是命”(Black Lives Matter)运动获得了广泛支持,随着人们对“审判”的期望越来越高,雇主们通过与工人讨论,探索了许多改善种族理解的选择。在拒绝任何关于存在结构性或系统性歧视的概念,更不用说需要解决这种歧视的后果时,某些团体已经开始通过试图减少任何社会正义行动来反对土地管理。其中一项关键的抵抗行动包括,用贬义词给那些通过社会正义声明或内部倡议来追求反种族主义目标的雇主贴上“觉醒”工作场所的标签。这些组织还批评雇主采用多元化、公平和包容性培训来帮助员工解决种族差异,认为这些培训应用了分裂性的“批判种族理论”原则,歧视并试图使白人参与者蒙上污名。通过使用CRT和觉醒标签作为武器,批评者将雇主置于一个不令人羡慕的位置,即决定如何在BLM改革和种族歧视问题的环境中实施反种族主义培训。这些无所不包的反种族主义言论现在迫使雇主展示他们的DEI培训和相关举措如何不歧视白人员工。这篇文章为那些追求DEI措施以实现种族进步的雇主提供了独特的见解,并断言他们可以通过继续依赖诉讼改革来规避反种族主义的叙述,并且仍然提出了导致20世纪90年代DEI培训实践增长的实证结果。许多雇主将DEI倡议视为良好的企业公民,重视人力资源的多样性,这是20世纪70年代平权行动的发展。20世纪90年代,由于法律上对歧视诉讼中陪审团的巨额裁决以及系统性歧视的实证指标感到担忧,雇主们通过书面同意令和司法批准的和解,采取了更全面的种族改善和培训措施。本文的结论是,觉醒的雇主应该采用更广泛的DEI目标,并限制对入门级种族意识的培训,因为经验数据表明,这种特殊的方法往往会引发反弹,而不会带来任何多样性的改善。相反,觉醒的雇主明白,大多数选民希望他们超越法律保护,在全面的DEI措施方面采取负责任的行动和领导。培训可以集中在可能使公司承担就业歧视责任的管理人员身上。觉醒训练整合了关键的随访,并与可测量的DEI结果相关。只关注DEI训练忽略了更重要的结构改变工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
(A)woke Workplaces
With heightened expectations for a reckoning in response to the broad support for the Black Lives Matter movement after the senseless murder of George Floyd in 2020, employers explored many options to improve racial understanding through discussions with workers. In rejecting any notions of the existence of structural or systemic discrimination, let alone the need to address the consequences of such discrimination, certain groups have begun to oppose BLM by seeking to diminish any social justice actions. One of those key resistance efforts includes labelling in pejorative terms any employers that pursue anti-racism objectives via social justice statements or internal initiatives as being “woke” workplaces. These groups have also criticized employers who adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion training to help workers address racial differences by arguing these sessions apply divisive Critical Race Theory principles that discriminate against and seek to stigmatize white participants. By using CRT and woke labels as weapons, critics leave employers in the unenviable position of determining how to implement antiracism trainings in an environment of BLM reforms and race discrimination concerns. These all-encompassing anti-anti-racism narratives now force employers to show how their DEI trainings and related initiatives do not discriminate against white employees. This Article offers unique insight for employers who pursue DEI measures to achieve racial progress and asserts they may circumvent antianti-racism narratives by continuing to rely on the litigation reforms and stillpresent empirical results that led to the growth of DEI training practices in the 1990s. Many employers had adopted DEI initiatives as good corporate citizens valuing diversity in human resources as a growth of affirmative action in the 1970s. With legal concerns in the 1990s about huge jury verdicts in discrimination lawsuits and empirical indicators of systemic discrimination, employers embraced more comprehensive racial improvement and training steps via written consent decrees and judicially approved settlements. This Article concludes that awoke employers should adopt broader DEI goals and limit training on entry-level racial awareness given empirical data suggesting this particular approach tends to spark backlash without any resulting diversity improvements. Instead, awoke employers understand that most constituents want them to act and lead responsibly regarding comprehensive DEI measures by going beyond legal protections. Training can focus on managers who may subject a company to employment discrimination liability. Awoke training integrates key follow-ups and correlates to measurable DEI results. Focusing on DEI training alone ignores the more important structural change work.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Wisconsin Law Review
Wisconsin Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Wisconsin Law Review is a student-run journal of legal analysis and commentary that is used by professors, judges, practitioners, and others researching contemporary legal topics. The Wisconsin Law Review, which is published six times each year, includes professional and student articles, with content spanning local, state, national, and international topics. In addition to publishing the print journal, the Wisconsin Law Review publishes the Wisconsin Law Review Forward and sponsors an annual symposium at which leading scholars debate a significant issue in contemporary law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信